Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Gold

Mr. Simon Burns: What the difference was between the money the Treasury received from the recent sale of gold and the purchase price of that gold. [91091]

Mr. Michael Fabricant: How much gold from the National Reserves he will sell next month. [91092]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Continuing the policy of the previous Government, this Government have accepted the principle of gold sales and have therefore continued to support the sale of International Monetary Fund gold to fund debt relief for the poorest countries.
In order to achieve a balanced portfolio of our national reserves, we will sell 125 tonnes of gold this year by the preannouncement and phasing of sales. There will be no sales of gold in August.
In answer to the first part of the question asked by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), most of the gold held in our reserves was acquired before 1950 at a purchase price of $35 an ounce or less. Therefore, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's detailed question, the 25 tonnes of gold sold on 6 July would have been purchased for a notional $30 million or less. The gold was sold for $209 million, which makes a cash profit of more than $170 million.

Mr. Burns: I am slightly surprised that the Chancellor did not give the figures in updated terms. Does the Chancellor accept that, between 7 May and the present, the price of gold per ounce has fallen from $287 to $254? That means that, as a result of the sale, every man, woman and child in this country has paid £10. Does the Chancellor think that the gold sale on 6 July helped or hindered the national interest? Given the fall in the gold price and the uncertainty in the gold market as a result of his announcement, will he postpone or put on hold future sales?

Mr. Brown: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. The mistake was made by the

previous Government. When the price of gold was valued at anything between $300 and $800 per ounce, they took no action while other countries around the world were rebalancing their assets portfolios. Although the hon. Gentleman complains about the British sale, over the past few years, Australia, Austria, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland have been selling their gold portfolios. Canada has sold 500 tonnes, the Netherlands has sold 700, Belgium has sold 707 and Switzerland plans to sell 1,300. We plan to sell 125 tonnes this year.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to take up the case of South Africa, I must inform him that it has halved its gold assets in the past 20 years and it sold more gold last year than we will sell this year. Those are the facts of the position. It is about time the Conservative party looked at the facts instead of being opportunistic in this matter.

Mr. Fabricant: Have not the Government achieved a double whammy not only by trumpeting the sales of gold as the price has fallen, but by saying that 40 per cent. of the sale proceeds will be used to purchase euros? Although the euro rallied slightly this morning and, as the Chancellor will know, is currently valued at $1.0535, is he not aware that the value may fall again in three or four months? What is his estimate of the value of the euro in three, four or six months or a year?

Mr. Brown: There is no change in the balance of our portfolio between euros, dollars and yen. The hon. Gentleman, who was a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Treasury, should know that the Chancellor whom he served supported the principle of gold sales in relation to the IMF. We will take no lectures about the use of the national reserves from the party that, when in power, lost £4 billion in a day on Black Wednesday 1992.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Chancellor refused to answer my question about the value of the euro, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I must move to the next question.

Windfall Tax

Mr. Michael Clapham: What evaluation he has undertaken of the use made of the windfall tax on the privatised utilities. [91093]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me explain to the House what has happened. When an hon. Member says that he intends to raise a question on the Adjournment, I must end the exchanges and move on.

Mr. Brown: The windfall tax, which raised £5.2 billion, has enabled the Government to embark upon the new deal—the biggest ever programme to get the unemployed into work. More than 284,000 people have now entered the new deal through the young person's scheme and almost 100,000 long-term unemployed have


entered the scheme. The windfall tax has also enabled the Government to inject much-needed capital investment into more than 10,000 schools. We will launch the new deal for the over-50s in the autumn. Therefore, we will continue to expand the new deal over the next few months.

Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, which shows clearly that the windfall tax has been used to create hope and opportunity for tens of thousands of young people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to reach the Government's objective of eliminating child poverty within the next 20 years, we must complement what has been done at regional and local levels in areas such as Barnsley where the average income per household on council estates is between £5,000 and £6,000 and 34 per cent. of children come from families that are in receipt of family credit or income support? Does he agree that we need more opportunity, greater equality and further redistribution of wealth if we are to eliminate child poverty and remedy the neglect that the Tory party inflicted on older industrial areas?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—when we came into power in 1997, a third of our children were in low-income families and 40 per cent. of children were being born into low-income families. That is why the first thing that we had to do was to create new job opportunities for the unemployed. That is why, with nearly 600,000 more people in work and nearly 300,000 young people involved in the new deal, we are creating working opportunities for families in this country.
As my hon. Friend rightly says, the second challenge is to make work pay, and it is very surprising that the Conservative party still opposes the new deal, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. On every issue, it is on the wrong side for the needs of working families, and I hope that at some point the shadow Chancellor will withdraw his remark that the new deal is
a waste of public money and a fraud perpetrated upon a great many people."—[0fficial Report, 4 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 881.]
The fraud is what the Conservatives perpetrated on the unemployed.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: How can the Chancellor have the gall to stand there and say that the windfall tax and the new deal have been a success? How many genuine jobs at full pay have been created? How much do those jobs cost? What will the Chancellor do in two years, when the windfall tax revenue will have run out?

Mr. Brown: There are 100,000 young people now in jobs. If only one young person had got a job, that would be satisfactory, but 100,000 young people are now in work. I should have thought that despite party politics, the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that there are more people in jobs.
On the use of the windfall fund, we have a new deal not only for young people, but for the long-term unemployed and single parents, and in October we shall introduce a new deal for the over-50s. If anybody considers the cost of unemployment under the Conservative Government, they will realise that the introduction of a windfall tax to get people back to work is the best use of public money.
The Conservatives' problem is not only that they opposed the new deal, but that they opposed the windfall tax, which was the right measure to take revenue from companies that had made excess profits as a result of the unfair privatisations and to use it to get people back to work.

Financial Services

Mr. James Plaskitt: What steps he is taking to ensure that people in poorer communities have access to financial services. [91094]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Following the publication of the report of the social exclusion unit, "Bringing Britain Together", we established two policy action teams, led by the Treasury to consider the problem of financial exclusion. We have involved community groups, credit unions, banks and buildings societies in their work and we expect to publish their reports and action plans in the autumn.

Mr. Plaskitt: Does my hon. Friend welcome the new duty imposed on the Financial Services Authority to perform an educational role? Does she agree that it should seek to concentrate its efforts on people with lower incomes, who have not previously had access to financial services? Does she further agree that the impact of the national minimum wage and the forthcoming working families tax credit will give lower-income families far greater opportunities to draw on financial services? Do not all those measures extend financial opportunity to the many, as opposed to the few?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right on both points. First, the Financial Services Authority has an important role to play in spreading information among all sections of consumers, particularly those on low incomes. Secondly, the Conservative party is opposed to the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal for the unemployed. In other words, the Conservatives would make the poor even poorer while a Labour Government are delivering opportunities and social inclusion for all.

Sir Peter Tapsell: While we are on the subject of poor communities, does the hon. Lady think that the Chancellor understands that his decision to sell our gold has plunged South Africa into crisis, and only today 2,500 Ghanaian miners have been laid off, and they and their many dependants have been plunged into abject poverty? Is that a good way to help poor communities throughout the Commonwealth?

Ms Hewitt: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman's question and the question that the shadow Chancellor was planning to ask about gold sales were destroyed by friendly fire. I do not really think that the hon. Gentleman can get them out of that hole.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made the position on gold sales absolutely clear. We are continuing the policy of the previous Government, to support gold sales by the International Monetary Fund in order to help to relieve the debt burden of the poorest people in the poorest communities—because, unlike the Conservative


party, we are determined to deliver opportunity and security, and to help the poorest people, whether in our own country or in the poorest countries of the world.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for meeting a delegation of community-based credit unions the other week. She knows the concerns that they raised about the balance between community-based credit unions and other credit unions. Will she give us an undertaking to ensure that the balance is redressed and that community-based credit unions are supported?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend has taken a long-standing interest in this matter. I entirely agree that credit unions have a very important role to play, especially in the most disadvantaged communities. We have some very successful credit unions in this country, such as the one that I recently visited at Speke in Liverpool, but they could obviously play a much larger role in helping to combat financial exclusion.
We shall shortly publish the report of the task force chaired by Fred Goodwin of the Royal Bank of Scotland, on how banks and building societies can help promote credit unions throughout the country, but especially in the poorest areas.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Following the Chancellor's eloquent comments in the Daily Mail earlier this week about the abuses in the mortgage market, is the hon. Lady aware of the disappointment at the fact that the Government continue to disregard the advice of the Treasury Committee and the Treasury Joint Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill that mortgages should be brought within statutory regulation and not allowed to remain within the self-regulating framework of the very institutions that are abusing the market?

Ms Hewitt: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not always able to attend meetings of the Joint Committee, but I think that he will be aware that, earlier this week, we published a consultation document on whether the sale of all mortgage products and advice on those products should be brought within the scope of the new Financial Services Authority. As we said then, we shall decide on the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and in particular the issue of mortgage regulation, before the end of the year, but we shall do so following proper consultation, and following a proper cost-benefit analysis, so that we can ensure that we get the best possible deal for every consumer and home buyer.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I am pleased by the focus that we have had this morning on credit unions, but will my hon. Friend admit that credit unions in this country have tighter restrictions than those in Australia and other countries? Are the Government considering relaxing those restrictions so that credit unions may expand, as they have in several countries?
On a different subject, do the Government look favourably on the expansion or development of local exchange trading schemes?

Ms Hewitt: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising both those points. We have already issued proposals for a deregulation order that would improve the capacity and the ability of credit unions to offer wider

services, for instance by enabling them to bring into membership people who work in a specific area as well as those who live in it. We are currently considering the responses to that consultation.
We are also considering in the social exclusion policy action teams the role that LETS can play, especially in helping unemployed people to develop skills that may be useful to them on returning to work.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Economic Secretary agree that one way of making financial services less accessible to people would be to put VAT on them? Will she therefore comment on the fact that, with the Treasury's knowledge and consent, Customs and Excise is engaged in discussions organised by the European Commission about extending VAT to financial services? To prevent the Government getting into the same muddle on this as they have on the withholding tax, where they are led along into damaging negotiations, will she make it clear now, in advance, that the Government will veto any attempt to extend VAT to things such as credit cards, bank charges or mortgages, and will she give that categorical assurance now, in advance of the negotiations, which are already under way?

Ms Hewitt: I am astonished by the right hon. Gentleman's ability to see European conspiracies even in a question about financial exclusion and credit unions. I remind him that it was the Conservative Government who imposed value added tax on fuel and who would have increased it to 17½ per cent. had we not stopped them and brought the rate down. It is a disgrace for the right hon. Gentleman to try to divert attention from what we are doing to promote competition in financial services and to ensure that the poorest people have access to mainstream financial services.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the consultation paper to which my hon. Friend referred include any reference to rates of interest paid on building society deposits, which many low-income families are very much dependent upon?

Ms Hewitt: The consultation document to which I referred deals with many of the problems that consumers have raised with us and with others in relation to mortgages. My hon. Friend will be aware of many of those problems, including the danger of lock-in periods, high financial penalties and the bundling of some mortgages with expensive home-and-contents insurance policies. The best way to deal with interest rates on both mortgages and on savings deposits is to ensure that there is healthy competition within a well-regulated banking and financial services sector. That is precisely what we are delivering through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently invited Mr. Don Cruickshank to conduct a special review of competition within the banking sector.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Having grown up on a road where there was no bank, I know how people always look to the Post Office for savings and other services. I welcome the Minister's statement on credit unions. Given that consultation is taking place, may I suggest that she does not give too much credit to those


who might be opposing credit unions because they have vested interests? I have seen how credit unions have freed many small, poor communities and given them more liberty in spending.

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I happily assure him that we will not allow any vested interests to stand in the way of the development of credit unions and other services for low-income areas. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the announcement that the Government made in May about computerisation of the Post Office network.
As we modernise Post Office Counters Ltd. so it will be able to offer efficient banking and financial services to everybody within the communities that it serves, including rural and deprived communities. It will be able to do that in partnership with banks and building societies, which may in the past have withdrawn their branches from rural and deprived communities.

VAT (Buildings)

Mr. Bob Russell: If he will reduce the level of value added tax charged on works undertaken to existing buildings. [91096]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): No. European Community agreements prevent us from bringing in a general reduced rate of VAT for works to all existing buildings.

Mr. Russell: I am disappointed by the Minister's response to what was meant to be a friendly question supporting the Deputy Prime Minister's document entitled, "Towards an Urban Renaissance". It would seem that it is not getting the support of the Treasury team. I wonder whether the Treasury and Treasury Ministers have bothered to read what has been proposed in the document. Given the hon. Lady's answer about value added tax, does she agree or disagree with some of the conclusions in "Towards an Urban Renaissance"? One passage states:
We propose removing the anomaly whereby renovation work on empty dwellings carries Value Added Tax…at a punitive 17.5%, but new housebuilding
is exempt. The paragraph continues:
Ideally, refurbishment and conversion work should be zero-rated…we would propose applying the minimum rate of 5% VAT to all housebuilding and conversion. A significant proportion of the extra revenue raised should then be used to fund regeneration and development on recycled land.

Madam Speaker: Order. That was far too long a quotation.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading to me a report which I have already seen. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer met Lord Rogers yesterday. The urban task force's report is being considered carefully by the Treasury. Our response will be in the urban White Paper. I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not more familiar with VAT legislation, and particularly the prevention of returning to a zero rate.

Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. The full version of the report is even better

than the appendix. I urge her to bring VAT rates for new build into line with rates for existing buildings. That is the key issue, not the rate itself, and it is urgently needed to ensure the proper allocation of housing on brown-field sites, rather than relying, as we do too heavily, on green-field sites.

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. The Government want to encourage sustainable housing growth. We must carefully consider what role tax will play in encouraging such growth. Lord Rogers's recommendations are being carefully studied.

Mr. John Bercow: Despite her risibly unsatisfactory answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), does the Paymaster General recognise the potential merit of the proposal made in February 1999—by the European Commission, curiously enough—for the imposition of lower rates of VAT on labour-intensive services? As her right hon. Friend the Chancellor is the heaviest plunderer of the pockets of the British people in the country's history, why does she not consider supporting that proposal, as it stands or in a suitably amended form?

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the proposals for an experimental reduced rate which are being discussed in the European Union are intended to reduce unemployment, and as he knows, unemployment in his constituency has gone down by 33 per cent. since the general election. It is the Government's view that in order to reduce unemployment, we should pursue the policies of skills development, job creation and a stable economy, which the Conservative Government did not pursue. With regard to those discussions, it is our view that they will not contribute to a reduction in unemployment, but we will study the proposals from member states for taking the matter forward.

Working Families Tax Credit

Fiona Mactaggart: How he will monitor the impact of the working families tax credit on incomes within families. [91097]

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What progress he has made with the implementation of the working families tax credit. [91099]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Our aim is that every child should have the best possible start in life. The working families tax credit will be implemented in October this year, including the new, generous child care tax credit. It will benefit nearly 1.5 million families, almost twice as many as under the old system of family credit, and about 3 million children. It will provide a minimum guaranteed income for a family with someone in full-time work of £200 a week—£80 more than the family would receive on income support. On average, families will gain £24 a week, and that will make work pay.
Together with the national minimum wage, the largest ever increase in child benefit, and the reform of taxation in national insurance and in income tax, the working families tax credit will lift about 800,000 children out of poverty.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the measures that he has taken to help low-paid


workers while they are bringing up their families, including the working families tax credit, which will benefit 150,000 people in my region. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, if the Conservatives got their way, it would mean a £24 a week tax increase for each of those families.
I am concerned that my right hon. Friend should ensure that his generosity does not get stuck in the pockets of fathers, and that it reaches children and their mothers. Will he ensure that there is independent evaluation of the distribution of his generosity within families, so that it gets to children and their mothers?

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend. We will have a monitoring system to see how the working families tax credit works. If there is a dispute about who should get the credit, it will normally be paid to the main carer. My hon. Friend is right. At the next election the Conservative party will have to defend its proposal for a tax rise of £24 a week for 1.5 million of the poorest people in the country. Even now, the Conservatives should desist from their opposition to a measure that will relieve family poverty, make work pay, increase child care and deal with the poverty traps.

Mr. Savidge: I welcome the extent to which the working families tax credit will help to tackle the appalling legacy of scandalous levels of child poverty that we inherited from the Conservative Government. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Conservative party not just for that legacy, but for their continuing opposition to the measure?

Mr. Brown: I would have hoped that the measure could be supported by all parties in the House, but it is now clear that not only does the Conservative party oppose the working families tax credit, and the shadow Chancellor say that it means state dependency when it is about the dignity of work and helping children, but the Conservative party now even opposes the advertising campaign which is designed to achieve the take-up of the new benefit that we want to see.
The previous Conservative Government spent £21 million advertising the British Gas sale, £36 million advertising the British Telecom sale and £60 million advertising water and electricity sales, but they cannot bring themselves to support the spending of £12 million to advertise a benefit to 1.5 million of the poorest families in Britain. The country will draw the right conclusions from that.

Mr. David Ruffley: Ministers will be aware that, on 26 January this year, the CBI said that the working families tax credit will be a "new burden" for companies, and that the costs will be significant, especially for small companies. What evidence does the Treasury have for thinking that the CBI is wrong?

Mr. Brown: I have spoken to representatives of all the small business organisations in the past few weeks about the implementation of the working families tax credit, and they have been involved in discussing its implementation. Mr. Stan Menden, of the Forum of Private Business, says:
The delivery of tax credits through payroll is clearly more effective than direct state handouts in freeing the labour market and reducing dependency and the cost of welfare.

It was a former director general of the CBI who proposed the measure in the first place.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that one way of helping to relieve the problems of the working poor is to raise the level at which people start paying tax, which would remove the necessity for many of them to receive the working families tax credit? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment that he will raise the tax threshold at the earliest opportunity to take minimum wage earners out of tax altogether and, subsequently, bring it up to the levels that applied at the end of the war when one could earn 50 per cent. of the average wage before paying tax rather than the 25 per cent. today?

Mr. Brown: We are in the 1990s, not in 1945, and we must devise a system to make work pay that is relevant to the changes in the 1990s. If I recall correctly, the hon. Gentleman's proposal, designed, no doubt, to solicit votes in the Liberal Democrat leadership election, would cost about £20 billion. Our proposal takes many more people out of poverty, helps to make work pay, deals with the problem of inadequate child care and tackles the poverty trap. I should have thought that it would benefit the hon. Gentleman's campaign to become leader of the Liberal Democrats if he supported our proposal.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I congratulate the Chancellor on the historic achievement of the working families tax credit, but he will know that some families will not gain as much as they might because of the steep rates of housing benefit withdrawal as income rises. Will the Chancellor guarantee that, for the Treasury, housing benefit reform should take place as soon as possible, that there should be no losers apart from those who are guilty of fraud and that those moving into work should be substantial gainers, so that the great advances of the working families tax credit are not clawed back by the steep withdrawal of housing benefit?

Mr. Brown: A housing policy review is taking place under my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend should not go away with the impression that people are losing out as a result of the working families tax credit. Many families will be £50 a week better off as a result of measures that we are introducing. On average, the benefits are £24 a week. That is going to exactly those groups of people whom he would want to see benefit from the measure—mothers who want to work, and people in low-paid families who were deprived under the previous Government not only of the minimum wage but of an adequate system of family credit. My hon. Friend could help us to put the message across throughout the country that this is a benefit that helps exactly those people who were denied help under the previous Government.

Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Chancellor think it matters that he has been condemned by the CBI, by the Institute of Directors and by the Federation of Small Businesses for turning employers into unpaid benefit officers? As the CBI has said, costs are particularly great for small businesses, which are always hardest hit by red tape. Does any of that matter to him or is he going to brush it all aside as he usually does?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman was stuck after failing to ask his question about gold, so he has repeated one that I have already answered. The Forum of Private Business has made its views clear and the CBI was originally involved in a proposal that would have led to the introduction of a working families tax credit. The right hon. Gentleman is opposing a proposal that even Ronald Reagan in the United States of America was prepared to support.
Under the previous Conservative Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman supported, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the former Secretary of State for Social Services, wrote in his book "Ministers Decide" that
our original proposal was that Family Credit should be paid through the pay-packet. This had a number of advantages. It brought tax and benefit closer together, and putting family credit explicitly on the pay-slip showed total new earnings—demonstrating…the gap between take-home wages and unemployment pay.
He wrote that, after right-wing Conservative opposition,
with some regret we eventually changed our proposal".
There are even members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party who wish that they had done what we are doing.

Mr. Maude: There were a lot of disadvantages to the proposal, which is why the Conservative Government did not introduce it. It is a scandal that the Chancellor is abolishing the system of family credit which the Conservatives introduced. Only this Chancellor could defend as helping the poor a measure that extends social security benefits to top-rate taxpayers.
Is not the working families tax credit yet another burden that has been imposed on business by a Government who claim to be the friend of business? Yet again, they say one thing and do another. On top of £30 billion of extra stealth taxes and £5 billion a year in costs for extra regulations—on the Government's own figures—businesses face a new energy tax and a new attack on information technology and other entrepreneurs. Is it any wonder that Britain has already slipped from fourth to eighth in the world competitiveness league? Is it surprising that the price of all that extra red tape has been calculated as more than 800,000 jobs? As always under Labour, the poor will suffer most.

Mr. Brown: The one group that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention in his diatribe is the working families whom the measure is designed to help. We are cutting the poverty trap that we inherited from the previous Government; we are tackling the problem of child care, which they never even bothered to address; we are dealing with the problem of making work pay; and we are dealing with the problem of child poverty in this country. It is unfortunate that the dividing line between us and the Conservatives is that we support a minimum wage; a working families tax credit; helping people who receive child benefit; helping pensioners through the £100 winter allowance; and allocating £40 billion for health and education—all central measures that will help working families—while the Conservative party is more extreme than ever in its opposition to anything that will help either the working poor or middle-income families in this country.

Local Government Finance

Laura Moffatt: What assessment he has made of the effect of the borrowing requirements of local authorities in the next financial year on his plans for fiscal and monetary stability. [91100]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): Local authority spending levels, including borrowing requirements, were taken into account in last year's three-year spending settlement. The resulting levels of public expenditure are reflected in the Government's plans for fiscal and monetary stability.

Laura Moffatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that good Labour authorities such as Crawley borough council will benefit most from fiscal stability? Such authorities managed to build houses for rent through the lean Tory years. They are still delivering good services and are regularly congratulated by the Audit Commission. Now Crawley borough council will have the stability that it needs to move forward and deliver even better services to the people of Crawley.

Mr. Milburn: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right and I pay tribute to the work of Crawley borough council, which is obviously a well-managed and well-run local authority. We have made additional resources available for local government and for our public services. The comprehensive spending review settlement for local government included a doubling in schools investment, an extra £3.5 billion of capital receipts for housing, £700 million more for local authority transport services, £800 million more for the new deal for communities and £2.3 billion through a reshaped single regeneration budget. All those measures will help to modernise our public services to give people in areas such as my hon. Friend's a better deal. They would all be threatened by the Conservatives' spending plans, because the Conservatives are interested in cutting back public spending whereas we are interested in investing in them.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that he has effectively cut services in sectors such as social services, education and police throughout North Yorkshire? Does he not also understand that he has subscribed to the economic convergence criteria, so beloved of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which are set out in the Maastricht treaty, and that the Government should therefore be discouraging public sector borrowing requirements by all local authorities?

Mr. Milburn: We have a further split in the Conservative party: there are divisions not only among those on the Front Bench, but between Back Benchers and Front Benchers. The Back Benchers want to spend more money and the Front Benchers want to spend less—less money for vital public services with the Conservatives and more with the Labour Government.

EU Economic Convergence

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What estimate he has made of the rate at which the UK economy has achieved sustained convergence with other EU countries since his statement to the House in October 1997. [91101]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government have said that there is no realistic prospect of the UK economy demonstrating, before the end of the current Parliament, convergence that is sustainable and settled rather than transitory. We have put in place policies for economic stability that have delivered low inflation and the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years, but the biggest threat to economic stability and to convergence would be a return to Conservative policies of boom and bust.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that one of the principal causes of the accelerating divergence of the UK economy from the continental cycle is the historic and growing ownership of assets in the United States by UK companies, and of assets in the UK by United States companies? What does the hon. Lady intend to do about the coincidence of managerial decision making and culture to which that gives rise? Does she intend to introduce measures to restrict the ownership and purchase of such assets, in the same way as she has assisted the European Union in its assault on the transatlantic art market?

Ms Hewitt: Like so many Conservative Members, the hon. Gentleman seems to forget that 50 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union, but we have no need whatever to choose between our close relationship with the EU and our close relationship with the United States of America. I had hoped that he would congratulate the Government on the consequences of our policy of economic stability and growth, which has delivered a 39.6 per cent. reduction in unemployment in his constituency. We took the decision to make the Bank of England independent to secure economic stability and low interest rates. The Conservatives have opposed independence for the Bank of England, just as they have opposed all our other policies for growth and stability.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the granting of operational independence to the Bank of England has brought the greatest economic stability in this country in a generation? Will she confirm that she will resist the demands from the Conservative party to move away from operational independence?
On the specific issue of the single currency, does my hon. Friend agree that it is right and proper that we continue to monitor convergence and the degree to which we are meeting the criteria that we set for entry? It is right that, if we meet those criteria, we let the people decide the issue in a referendum. It would be totally wrong to give in to the Conservative party and to accept the demand that, whatever the circumstances and the national economic interest, we will not let the people decide the issue for an arbitrary period of 10 years.

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. We took the tough decision to give the Bank of England operational independence. Every month for the past two years, the Conservative party has denigrated and opposed that decision. It will have no credibility left if it now tries to pretend that it is in favour of that policy. On the question of joining the single currency, the reality is that the Conservative party is now so extreme and so anti-European that it would oppose joining a single currency, even if it were good for the British economy, for business and for jobs.

Mr. Quentin Davies: We have had some more bad examples this morning of the Government cooking the figures and trying to spin away the facts, not least in a thoroughly disreputable answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) about gold sales. Had the Chancellor—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Davies: Had the Chancellor quoted the sale price and the purchase price in constant prices—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet. He must also keep within the terms of the question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Davies: I am asking the Government how they will cook the figures or spin away the facts in comparing the growth rates in this country with those in the rest of the European Union. How will they explain away the fact that, in the last five years of the previous Parliament, we consistently had a higher growth rate than the rest of the EU, while this year and next year we shall have a lower growth rate than the EU average?

Ms Hewitt: The fact that the hon. Gentleman cannot explain away is that he is in favour of Britain's membership of the EU, while his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), is against it and wants to withdraw. The divisions on the Conservative Front Bench on this issue will damage the national interest. This Government have delivered economic stability and the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Did my hon. Friend have a chance to read the remarkable article in the Financial Times two weeks ago, which reported the shadow Chancellor as saying that the euro would be a success? Has she noticed that, since that speech, the euro has gone up? Will she encourage the right hon. Gentleman to make more such speeches and unleash the passionate pro-euro feelings of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who, every time he opens his mouth at the Dispatch Box, sees the euro go up and converge with the pound? His great dream of entering the single market will then come about sooner than he hopes.

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes his point quite brilliantly. It is highly appropriate that the shadow Chancellor—the man who signed the Maastricht treaty—should now apparently be responsible for a rise in the value of the euro.

Savings Ratio

Mr. Robert Syms: What estimate he has made of the savings ratio in 1999–2000. [91102]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The March 1999 Budget showed the savings ratio rising to 7.5 per cent. in 1999 and beyond.

Mr. Syms: Will the Minister apologise for the vicious attack that the Government have launched against savers: the £5 billion that they are taking out of pension funds; and the abolition of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts? Is it any wonder that, since the last election, the savings ratio has plummeted to 7 per cent?

Mr. Milburn: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be careful about quoting savings ratios, because under his Government the savings ratio hit a low of 3 per cent. It is now 7 per cent. and rising. It is rising precisely because of the economic stability that this Government have created. I tell the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who are chuntering from the Front Bench that the worst enemy of savers is the rampant inflation that we saw under the previous Government.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is it not the case that pensioners with savings gain most from the current extremely low level of headline inflation? Is not that beneficial product of the Labour Government's policies a contrast with the prolonged double-figure inflation rates that we had under the previous Government?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: pensioners and others are benefiting from the low-inflation climate that we have managed to create. We have created a form of economic stability that this country has not seen for many years, with interest rates at their lowest level in more than 20 years, mortgages at their lowest rate for more than 30 years, inflation down and public finances under control. All of that is in marked contrast to the economic turmoil that we saw when the previous lot were in power.

Mr. Howard Flight: The savings ratio was 9.7 per cent. on average in the last three years of the Conservative Government. How does the Chancellor reconcile his fine words about increasing investment with the fact that the savings ratio has fallen by 26 per cent. since his Government came to power? It is, indeed, the attack on savings that has led to that. Not only have the subscriptions to individual savings accounts in the first quarter, in value terms, been enormously down on PEPs and TESSAs; not only are pension funds losing £5 billion a year; but the Chancellor will find, following the initiatives on stakeholder pensions, that there is a massive fall in the value of company pension scheme provisioning to money pensions, and a massive increase in people cashing in personal pensions. Here again we have the Government spinning one thing and doing another.

Mr. Milburn: I know that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party do not like individual savings accounts, but the truth is that savers do. In the first two months following their launch, savers invested more than £4 billion in them—more than twice as much as was invested in PEPs and TESSAs during exactly the same period last year. What is most heartening from the Government's point of view—and, I should have thought, from the point of view of the House as a whole—is that most of the savings were invested in cash ISAs, which will benefit small savers especially. The Government are creating not only economic stability, but an environment in which saving will expand and increase.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking his question, because, in many respects, his is the authentic voice of the Conservative party. He is the man who says that he wants state pensions to be privatised, and sickness and unemployment benefits to be transferred to the private sector. Moreover, rather than agreeing with his hon. Friends on the Back Benches that public spending should be increased, he wants it to be cut by £50 billion this year, next year and every year. That is the authentic voice of the Conservative party.

Green-field Housing Development

Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to impose a tax on green-field housing development; and if he will make a statement. [91103]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Chancellor has no present plans to impose a tax on green-field developments. The Government keep under review the scope for using economic instruments to complement the planning system in achieving their social and environmental objectives.

Mr. Mullin: I am disappointed by that reply. As my hon. Friend will know, agricultural land that is normally worth between £3,000 and £5,000 per acre is now changing hands at up to £8,000 per acre, and much of the gross gain is being rolled over for the purposes of capital gains tax. Is this not one area in which the Treasury, without arousing any political controversy, might raise some extra money for the public?

Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I know of his long-standing interest in the matter, and I know that he has had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.
Roll-over relief enables businesses to modernise and expand. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that we are giving careful consideration to Lord Rogers's report, and, as my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said, will return to the House with our conclusions.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Earlier this morning it was the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew); now it is the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Clearly a campaign is developing on the Labour Back Benches for the introduction of a tax on new housing development. Given the Government's track record in regard to the introduction of new taxes, does the Financial Secretary not owe it to potential home owners to rule out categorically the introduction of such a tax?

Mrs. Roche: I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's cheek. He was a Treasury Minister in the Government who introduced the measure that imposed VAT on fuel—the measure that hit hard-working families most. He should spend some time examining his own record—the record that got the Conservative party into such a mess.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a great opportunity for the next 10 years? With a taxation policy married to an environmental policy that is sensible and far-sighted, we can regenerate our towns and cities by tackling brown-field and contaminated sites. However, a flow of taxation moneys will be needed to help brown-field sites to compete with green-field sites.
If I were asked to advise the Government, I would advise them to emphasise the importance of making brown-field development a priority, rather than taxing green-field development.

Mrs. Roche: I understand completely the points that my hon. Friend makes, and—as he knows—the Government have set a target for increasing the proportion of new housing on brown-field sites. He is also absolutely right to talk about the need for a joined-up and co-ordinated approach, not only in the Treasury but in all Departments, in achieving that goal. Consequently, we are very grateful to Lord Rogers and are considering his recommendations very carefully.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Lady please tell the House what type of incentives are being considered to encourage brown-field rather than green-field site development?

Mrs. Roche: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Rogers report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The Rogers report is very detailed, dealing not only with a range of fiscal measures, but with all the other initiatives that the Government are undertaking in urban areas. It is very much a report for all Departments, and Treasury Ministers will be considering it very carefully. However, as my hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, it is a matter not only for the Treasury but for other Departments; on planning, for example, it is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We shall make a co-ordinated response as soon as we possibly can, after we have considered the report.

Public Sector Investment

Ms Beverley Hughes: What is the level of extra investment he has allocated to the public sector since May 1997. [91104]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The comprehensive spending review, in July 1998, allocated an additional £65 billion within total departmental expenditure limits over the next three years. Of that, some £40 billion is extra investment in health and education.

Ms Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, which demonstrates that—unlike the previous Government, who tried to destroy public services—this Government are investing massively in the future of those services. Does he agree that, after those Tory years, across the public sector, we need not only new ways of doing things, but new ways of thinking—such as more responsive services, much higher quality and more creativity? How will the Government ensure that the extra investment provided will produce the radical transformation that we need?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Our public services not only have a repair, maintenance and infrastructural improvement backlog but need to be modernised so that they provide the responsive and modern services which people nowadays quite rightly expect. That is why the record levels of investment that we have made available for health, education and other public services are tied to specific outcomes—and why, in our public service agreements, we have set 600 targets that we expect to be met. The end result will be not only smaller class sizes, shorter waiting lists and less congestion, but dramatically improved public services in communities across the land which people will be experiencing in the next few years.

Mr. Edward Leigh: In an ideal world, should the proportion of gross domestic product taken by the public sector increases or decrease?

Mr. Milburn: I know that the hon. Gentleman likes talking about ideal worlds, as that is easier than living in the real one. Nevertheless, on his question, he should have a word with his Front-Bench spokesmen—such as the shadow Chancellor, who, when we announced our record extra investment in health and education, described our spending plans as madness; or the Leader of the Opposition, who described our spending plans as reckless; or the shadow Chief Secretary, who said that they were dangerous. The Conservatives now say that they want to sign up to them—but their spending plans do not add up any more than their figures do.

VAT (Church Buildings)

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What representations he has received recently on the level of VAT on church building repairs and renovations. [91106]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Treasury Ministers have received a number of letters asking for a zero rate or reduced rate of VAT for repairs to church buildings.

Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in many parts of the country, churches are an important part of our heritage, and that many of the older buildings cost considerable sums to maintain and operate? Is there not a very strong case for at least reducing VAT on such repairs—accepting that they cannot be zero-rated—to 5 per cent?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend will know that the construction of new churches, church halls and village halls is free of VAT, and that, each year, £20 million is granted for the maintenance and repair of churches. Within current VAT legislation, the Government do not have the ability to reduce the rate.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister looked at the problems in many inner-city areas where people are trying to renovate buildings rather than knocking them down and starting again or using green-field sites?

A moment ago the Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred to joined-up government. Is there not a suggestion that, unless the issue is tackled, there constantly will be an incentive for people to knock down and start again or to go to a green-field site?

Dawn Primarolo: Yes, the Government are aware of that, and Lord Rogers has looked at such subjects in the urban task force report. It is a pity that the decline of those areas occurred not just since the last general election but under the last Government, who did absolutely nothing about it.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: Would the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 JULY—Conclusion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill.
Supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Local Government Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill.
TUESDAY 27 JULY—Debate on public expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The provisional business for the first week back after the summer recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 19 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the first report from the Treasury Committee on the Office for National Statistics, followed by a debate on the reports from the Select Committee on Public Administration on the work of the ombudsman. Both debates will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 20 OCTOBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 21 OCTOBER—Debate on the fourth report from the Procedure Committee on the procedural consequences of devolution.
FRIDAY 22 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.

Sir George Young: We are grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us next week's business and an indication of the business for the first week back. Having said that, today's statement is not a happy one with which to conclude before the recess. I very much regret that, at short notice last night, the Government decided to guillotine two Bills, neither of which the Opposition had planned to delay. The right hon. Lady has now announced yet another guillotine for Monday. I will set out the reasons why we feel that the Government have overreacted when we debate the motion later. At this stage, I would say that the Government have played their hand badly and sent the House off on the wrong note.
Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that Members will be able to get here for the next guillotine debate on Monday? I understand that another group of citizens whom the Government have driven to despair are to lobby Parliament—this time, the truckers, following the latest meeting of the road haulage forum on Monday, which demonstrated that the Government are interested only in delay and not in genuine discussion.
I welcome the proposed debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the consequences of devolution, for which I—and you, Madam Speaker—have been

calling. We will do our best to help the Government find the right way through the consequences of devolution for this House which, clearly, they have not thought through.
Also in the first week back, we are due to discuss the Office for National Statistics. Should not we use the time to debate the royal commission on long-term care—a debate that has been called for repeatedly in the six months since publication of the report and which the Government seem anxious to avoid?
Finally, I understand that the Government will publish their annual report next week. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the place to hold the Government to account is not before the press and civil servants in the rose garden at No. 10—as last year—but here, before Members of Parliament, in the Chamber of the House of Commons?

Mrs. Beckett: I, too, regret the fact that the Government have found it necessary to introduce timetable motions on the debates of which I have given notice today. Conservative Members seem to have got it into their heads that things run all one way in the House and that they are at liberty to play the rules as they choose, without the Government being able to have similar regard to those rules. We will be able to touch on those matters if Conservative Members want to debate them. We, too, regret the fact that it was not possible to reach agreement on the handling of legislation. We have to protect not only Government business but the interests of the House as a whole.
On groups being driven to despair, I am not sure what those who were lobbying the House yesterday were driven to, but they were certainly making the most extraordinary noises, which I presume were supposed to be evocative of some part of their argument; they were certainly interesting, if not illuminating.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the debate on procedure, for which, as he rightly said, both he and Madam Speaker have asked us to find time. I reject the notion that there is something unforeseen about the debate. We need to consider how our procedures can evolve and we will have a useful opportunity to discuss that.
I think that we have been waiting—as the right hon. Gentleman would put it—for the debate on long-term care for closer to four months than six. We will of course have that debate, but we will not be able to have it as early as he suggests.
I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the annual report. I am slightly surprised if he is saying that it should be announced in a statement to the House, as I rather had the impression that he thought otherwise in the past, but I will certainly bear his remarks in mind in the future.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the not-too-distant future for a further debate in a calm atmosphere on the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny? I chaired the Special Select Committee on the Food Standards Bill, which took evidence from two Ministers on two occasions and from 24 organisations and three other individuals. We spent many hours producing a report most of whose recommendations the Government accepted. In view of this week's events, especially as there were more than 20 Opposition amendments on


Report, following both Second Reading and the Standing Committee, we need to decide whether this is how the Modernisation Committee wanted us to proceed or whether legislation should go through Parliament in a calmer and more sensible way.

Mrs. Beckett: I had thought that the whole House was grateful to my hon. Friend and the Committee for the excellent work that they did on the Food Standards Bill. Until yesterday, those proceedings were thought to have been a model of the way in which we would all want the all-party recommendations of the Modernisation Committee to be implemented. The Special Select Committee did excellent work, as Select Committees always do, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the hope was that the legislation would be handled all the better, and would be better legislation, because of the degree and the kind of scrutiny that it had received. I was especially sorry to hear Conservative Members criticising the work of the Special Select Committee.
I agree that if we are to proceed with proper modernisation, we must bear in mind that it will never happen if, at the last minute, when all the proper procedures for a modernised debate have been carried through, people want to take the opportunity to exploit the use of time and not to debate a Bill properly. The House will have to take that into account.

Mr. Don Foster: I urge the Leader of the House to find time for the Government to explain to the House why they have made a material change to the contracts for special advisers. Is she aware that, under the previous Administration, special advisers were specifically warned not to engage in purely party political activities, whereas under the new Labour contract they are specifically encouraged to brief Labour Back Benchers?
Will the Leader of the House find time for the Government to explain why the House has been told that there has been no change in the arrangements, when that is clearly not the case? Why have we been told that no records are kept of briefings given by special advisers, when I have in my hand an example of a Department for Education and Employment briefing that is titled, dated and numbered, gives specific references to other titled, dated and numbered briefings and states where copies of such briefings can be obtained? Can the Leader of the House explain why the House has been told that no records are kept?
Finally, on the first question raised by the shadow Leader of the House, will the right hon. Lady provide time to reflect on the use of guillotine motions? Does she accept that the orderly programming of business by timetable motions agreed by all parties is for the benefit of the House, but that the procedure is being brought into disrepute by the sudden introduction of guillotines of which the Opposition parties have had no notice?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about political advisers. I do not know why the House has been told that no records are kept. Perhaps it is because they are not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Perhaps?"] Well, I do not know. The hon. Gentleman makes several suggestions about changes that he says have taken place in the way in which special advisers are employed under

this Government compared with under the previous Government. I am not familiar with the arrangements under which special advisers were employed by the previous Government. On at least one occasion, statements were made purporting to suggest changes in the way in which special advisers are able to operate, which—I am told—were not well founded. Conservative Members suggested, for example, that there were changes in the rules that had operated when they were in government when that was not the case. As for the hon. Gentleman's basic assertion that under the previous Government special advisers held themselves aloof from the impurity of party politics, I can only say that the large number of former special advisers decorating the Opposition Benches suggests that that policy was spectacularly unsuccessful.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the orderly progress of business and timetable motions. I entirely share his view. I am not sure whether he was able to be in the House last night. If he was, he will know both that I regretted that we felt we had to introduce these timetable motions and that I made it plain that an agreed timetable was sought and it was only when agreement was not forthcoming that we felt we had to take action to protect not only today's but tomorrow's business.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I for one do not question in any way the right of the Opposition to delay business? That is the legitimate right of the Opposition. Is it not the case that during the 18 years that we were in opposition, when we delayed business, the Government's response was always to introduce a guillotine motion? Therefore, there is absolutely no difference in the responses of the previous and the present Governments. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that on Monday night, when we stayed until two o'clock in the morning—I make no complaints whatever—some Opposition Members voted against every order on the agenda, including one that would have extended the opening hours for the millennium celebrations? They are spoilsports and we should tell the country so.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am particularly grateful to him for drawing attention to the fact that the Conservative party voted against the licensing extension for the millennium celebrations. Their constituents should all be made aware that the Conservative party wishes them to stay at home without the opportunity of alcoholic refreshment—the new killjoy approach to politics.

Mr. Peter Brooke: In the light of the last remark of the Leader of the House, may I say that I voted against the motion because my constituents do not wish the licensing laws to be extended through the night and Westminster city council contributed to the consultation paper exactly on those lines?

Mrs. Beckett: I am even more grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—if that is possible—because I was under the misapprehension that many Conservative Members voted to make a gesture without being fully aware that, as he has made plain, it was a deliberate decision.
That reinforces the argument that it is only right for their constituents to know that they have made that decision, as they are perfectly entitled to do.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that four regions of the United Kingdom have benefited from billions of pounds of aid from Europe under objective 1 status. Is she aware that the deadline for the initial submission is the end of October, just after we return? To meet the deadline, those four regions need to have indications of support from a series of Government Departments. May we have a statement before the House adjourns on the financial support that will be available for objective 1 applications?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to my right hon. Friend that we will be able to find time for such a statement. However, I understand the point that he makes and I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Departments and my right hon. and hon. Friends there.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Lady reflect that I cannot remember when guillotine motions were introduced in the last week of a Parliament, when we could sit on a few extra days to have all the debate that we might want? It really seems a little strange that that is the line that the Government are taking. During next week and the recess, will she consider whether the Government can produce an answer to the important suggestion that has been made by members of the Modernisation Committee that hon. Members might be able to table written questions when the House is not sitting? As we are not sitting for 12 weeks, many hon. Members reasonably feel that they would like to get answers out of Ministers during that time. The answers could be published in Hansard on a weekly basis. That would enhance the way in which Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House could keep the Government up to scratch.

Mrs. Beckett: I take on board the strong and powerful request that the right hon. Gentleman makes for the House to sit for longer and not to adjourn next Tuesday. It is not entirely clear to me whether he carries the majority of his party with him in making that request. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Oh, he does. Well, that is interesting, especially in view of the number of occasions on which Opposition Members have pressed me, over such a sustained period, to give the dates of the recess.
I recognise that one characteristic of opposition is that the memory fails a little. I am aware, but the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps overlooked the fact, that the recess dates that I have proposed are shorter than those for four out of the five years of the previous Parliament. Far from proposing a longer recess, as some Opposition Members allege that the Government have done, we are already proposing a shorter one. However, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about written questions. It is a matter that the Government are considering. He will know that there are implications for the staff of the House as well as for others. The matter is under discussion and I accept that it is a worthwhile point to consider.

Mr. Syd Rapson: Can time be found for a debate on yesterday's Court of Appeal

decision on my constituent, Mrs. Carol Glass. To be of help, Madam Speaker, the lady in question has a son of 12 who is disabled. Doctors decided to hasten his death by the injection of diamorphine. The parents objected severely and wanted a court decision. It was refused. The Court of Appeal decision yesterday was not clear and it needs redefining. Only the House could discuss the issue in its own way, to define the matter for the future.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have, of course, as the whole House will have, great sympathy for families and, indeed, clinicians who find themselves in those difficult circumstances. However, with great respect, although the House is a forum in which such matters may be aired, I am wary of seeking to decide such issues within this forum. It is difficult enough for the courts, clinicians and families to make such decisions. I fear that, much though I sympathise with the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind the new-found fondness of the Leader of the House for finding time on Fridays for private Members' Bills, will she give us an assurance that, before the House considers such Bills in the next Session, she will have found time for consideration of the fifth report of the Procedure Committee? The report notes that, when ministerial statements are made on Fridays on private Members' Bill days, the House should be given extra time to discuss those Bills, so that the time for ministerial statements is not taken out of private Members' time. That might have ensured that my Bus Fuel Duty (Exemptions) Bill, which would have given a rebate to community transport, would have passed through the House instead of being talked out by a Minister. I find the right hon. Lady's new fondness for private Members' Bills somewhat insincere.

Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on his desire to assist community transport. It is perhaps unfortunate that he did not manage to do so when he was a Minister at the then Department of Transport, and has been forced to rely on the private Members' Bill mechanism—but there we go; I realise that we all have difficulties from time to time. However, we are giving proper and thorough consideration to the fifth report of the Procedure Committee.

Angela Smith: The Leader of the House will be aware of the announcement earlier this week of new improvements to the vaccine for meningitis C. As secretary of the all-party Cuba group, I have been observing progress on the disease for some time, because the Cuban Government have largely eradicated meningitis C; I hope that we can do the same. May we have a debate on the achievements in the NHS? I realise that there has been an Opposition debate on the NHS, but it seemed to be critical of and did not do justice to the staff in the NHS—nurses, doctors, clinicians and support staff. Would it not now be opportune to hold a debate on the achievements of the NHS and its staff?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share her view that there is much to celebrate in the achievements of the health service; it is a pity that


sometimes the focus of debate in this place is on problems rather than on successes. Although I accept the strength of my hon. Friend's case—I am aware of the work that she and her group have carried out in studying the issue—I regret that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, during the next few days, the Government will make an announcement on those regions in the United Kingdom that may be eligible for objective 2 status under European Union structural funds? Does she acknowledge that such an announcement is vital for many regions represented by Members on both sides of the House? Does she accept that the way in which the decision on regional selective aid was made—at a press conference—did not allow Members the opportunity to cross-examine Ministers on the announcement? Does she also accept that, as there are only a few days left before the summer recess, it is imperative that she finds time, at the appropriate moment, for a statement by Ministers on that matter, so that Members can cross-examine them on the result of the announcement?

Mrs. Beckett: Consideration is being given to how we can inform hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that great effort was made by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to give Members of Parliament as much information as possible. I understand that consideration is being given to how that can be followed up and the fullest possible information can be made available.

Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, since the general election, there has been no debate on the aerospace industry in general, although there have been debates in the context of defence procurement. Given that major changes are due in the European aerospace industry over the next few years, will she be able to find time, after the recess, for a debate on the future of the UK aerospace industry?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters; I believe that he is the new chair of the all-party aerospace group—on which I heartily congratulate him. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the aerospace industry in the very near future, although I am aware of the enormous importance of that industry throughout the UK—not least in the north-west—and of its international success. I fear that that success will have to go somewhat unsung—at least 'for a little while. However, we shall soon be at the stage of considering which issues will be discussed in the Queen's Speech. My hon. Friend may find an opportunity to raise the matter in those debates.

Sir Teddy Taylor: When can we have a debate about the massive expenditure of public funds through the common agricultural policy? Is not the need for such a debate all the more urgent in light of the appalling information that I received in a written answer from Ministers last week, which revealed that last year the European Community spent £100 million on destroying a vast

amount of food, including 174,000 tonnes of cauliflowers and 240,000 tonnes of tomatoes? As we are spending £100 million on destroying food, is it not time that the House of Commons debated that subject?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have long shared his view that the common agricultural policy needs significant reform. That view is being shared more widely across Europe and the world. The hon. Gentleman will know also that some reforms have been undertaken—although not as many as we would like. We are all seeking opportunities to continue to pursue the issue of CAP reform, not least through international discussions that may take place in the next year or so.

Mr. Phil Hope: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the work of the electoral commission and revitalising democracy? I visited Eddisbury yesterday where voters were clearly motivated by the chance to meet by-election candidates and the Prime Minister but were turned off by the yobbish behaviour of the Conservative party. We need new, radical proposals to revitalise interest, particularly among young people, in the democratic process.

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view about that important issue. I know that some people continue to believe that we should make it difficult for people to register their vote, but I think that we should make it easier. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary presented a full list of proposals on that matter last week. I am aware that the voters of Eddisbury have the opportunity to express their views today, and I am sure that all Labour Members—but perhaps not Opposition Members—hope that, when they do so, they will bear in mind the Government's many achievements, such as the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, low inflation, a successful and stable economy and no more boom and bust.
I am strongly of the view that, in elections of any sort, we should pay some attention to the deficiencies of our system. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time to debate that subject in the near future, but I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that we have been pressing for some time for a general debate on Northern Ireland. She will be aware also that the IRA issued a strange statement this morning. May we have a debate in the spill-over period so that we may reflect upon the issues coolly and calmly? Senator Mitchell was invited to travel this road four years ago, but he missed that part of the journey. The decommissioning body then missed its opportunity. Political discussions then led to the Belfast agreement and the decommissioning body was tasked with producing a report. However, the reality is that we have had no decommissioning. What message are three democratic Governments—this Government, the Republic of Ireland Government and the United States Government—sending to terrorists throughout the world when we pander to that sort of behaviour?

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all those Governments are continuing to send the consistent message that we believe in the Good Friday agreement,


that we want to see it carried through and that we want the peace process to reach a successful conclusion. I cannot undertake to find time so far in advance for the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks in the spill-over period. However, I obviously do not rule it out. As we get nearer to the time, it may prove to be the correct thing to do. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, but I am sure he understands that I cannot give him a date at present.

Mr. Steve McCabe: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the war being waged by South Birmingham community health council to prevent the building of a new hospital in south Birmingham? It appears that 14 individuals are prepared to use the health council as a cover for their campaign which is based on information that they know to be false. How is that an acceptable use of public funds? Will my right hon. Friend try to find time in future for a debate on the funding and accountability of community health councils?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I was not aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. I can well understand his concern if he thinks that difficulties are being caused for the provision of health care to his constituents. I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a debate on the specific subject that he raises, but I undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. David Maclean: Does the right hon. Lady not now regret building in the extra, unnecessary week's holiday in February so that Labour Back Benchers can have a few more days off? Will she now reverse the distressing trend of the new Labour Government to give longer and longer recesses so that less and less time is spent in the House and then ruthlessly to curtail debate on every item of substance? [Interruption.] There would be plenty of time to debate matters in the House if the right hon. Lady followed the conventions and traditions of parliamentary debate, rather than guillotining debates.

Mrs. Beckett: I could not quite hear all the right hon. Gentleman's final remarks because of the noise that his colleagues were making. I simply say to him that he is living in a fantasy world. He clearly did not take the trouble to conduct even the most cursory scrutiny—which would be in sound parliamentary tradition—of the facts before he made his points. It is totally untrue to say that the Government have given longer recesses than previous Governments, as I have already pointed out to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). This recess is shorter than was the norm under the Government whom the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) served so comparatively recently.
As for the mid-February break, I do not regret that, because, Madam Speaker, you will recall, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly does not, that the all-party Modernisation Committee recommended that break because it believed that it would be conducive to the smoother and more effective working of Parliament. Only a few Conservative Members objected, at least publicly, when I sought to accommodate the expressed wish of the House, which is also consistent with parliamentary tradition.
The right hon. Gentleman needs to get it into his head that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said earlier, it is of course right, proper and consistent with the traditions of the House for the Opposition to seek to exploit the opportunities available to them regarding the use of time. It is also well within the traditions of the House for the Government to have to deal with those attempts from time to time.

Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we revisited the Modernisation Committee's work on electronic voting? In particular, is it not a great waste of time that we go though the Lobby to vote on motions that have not even been debated in the House? At the very least, could we consider the opportunity to use electronic voting on such motions?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that, as he will know, is raised from time to time in the context of modernising the House. I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on that in the near future. Everyone understands that there is flexibility within the rules of the House for hon. Members, as individuals or as organised groups, to make their case by causing disruption to the proceedings from time to time. That is well within our parliamentary traditions, but hon. Members must realise that if feeling begins to grow in the House that those traditions are being frivolously misused, that will cause problems.

Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Leader of the House find time before the end of the Session for a debate on England? We have spent a considerable time debating Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and there has been major constitutional change. It would be useful if hon. Members could express their views on the English question, what should happen and what should be the relationship between English Members of Parliament and other Members of the House. There is no English Question Time or any other opportunity for us to raise those issues, so a debate on England over two or three days would be more than welcome.

Mrs. Beckett: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He regularly attends business questions, so he will have heard you, Madam Speaker, draw attention a couple of weeks ago to the fact that this is the United Kingdom Parliament and we are elected as United Kingdom MPs. There is wariness about arguments and steps that seem to jeopardise that union.
The hon. Gentleman will also have heard me make the point before that the Government have been minded to use the Standing Order, which is within the control of the House, on the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, so that a further forum for the exploration of some exclusively regional affairs could be established. That proposal has hitherto been blocked by the hon. Gentleman's party, so I say to him with great respect that although I do not question his sincerity in raising the matter, I question the sincerity of the Conservative party in saying that there is a lack of time for such a debate.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the need for more rigorous controls at our airports of passports sold for


£30,000 apiece by the sleazemaster general of the Tory party, Mr. Michael Ashcroft, and about the great concern that they are now in the hands of some very dubious gentlemen who are not welcome in this country, even if they do bring money to the new sleaze fund of the Tory party?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure whether the handling of passports of a foreign country falls within our remit. I know that my hon. Friend will have made his points to the relevant Secretaries of State who deal with immigration matters.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we have a debate on the so-called review of matters relating to Northern Ireland? It really is time, is it not—I hope that the Leader of the House will agree—to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the review, particularly in light of the fact that we now know that the IRA never had any intention of giving up any weapons? [Interruption.] It has now said so; that is now clear. Please, therefore, may we have no more pretence, and certainly no more releases of terrorists and murderers, so long as the IRA has made it clear, as it now has, that it has no intention—and has never had any intention—of giving up any of its weapons?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman down that road. He knows that Senator Mitchell has only today begun discussions on his work. As I told the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), the Government remain committed to the Good Friday agreement. I was under the impression that it was also the policy of the Conservative party to be committed to the Good Friday agreement, although, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, the request that he has just made would be in danger of jeopardising that agreement. Judging by the noises that were made in support of what he said, I am wondering whether the Conservative party does any longer support the Good Friday agreement. I hope that that is a mistaken impression.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Lady tell me whether she expects a statement from the Government about their response to the consultation paper on leasehold reform before we rise for the recess? If not, will she assure us that we shall get a debate on the subject in the spill-over period? However, if that is not possible, do we assume that there will be no legislative progress in this Parliament on the reform of leaseholds?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate on the matter before the Session ends. I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing. As to assumptions about whether anything will be done in this Parliament, the hon. Lady will know that it is never wise to make assumptions about future legislative programmes.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In the context of the ensuing statement on consumer protection, might time be found to discuss the scam, which has been revealed by some excellent investigative journalism by the Aberdeen Press and Journal, that a Liverpool-based

business man, Mr. Peter Quinn, is offering for sale bogus degree certificates for the university of Aberdeen, the Robert Gordon university and the university of Stirling? That will be a matter of concern not only to those hon. Members who, like me, are graduates or honorary graduates of those universities, but, as it obviously involves criminal fraud, it will be of concern to the House, which I am sure will wish the police, trading standards officers and the courts to deal with the matter as swiftly as possible.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the whole House shares with the concern that he has expressed, and will welcome the moves that the Government are making to strengthen consumer protection in that and other respects.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) would give me the relevant address.
Will the Leader of the House see what she can do to provide time in what I know is a packed programme—perhaps this could be arranged for the spill-over period—for the House to have a debate solely on the Territorial Army, so that in the light of events in Kosovo and elsewhere and of the enormous demands for engineers and signallers, many of whom come from the TA, we can question how it was possible for the Prime Minister to say in the House yesterday that the cuts made in the TA by the Labour Government were good for the TA and further for the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a specific debate on the TA. I have no doubt that from time to time there will be opportunities to discuss defence matters. The hon. Gentleman will know that the first phase of the structural reform of the TA is now complete.
The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday stem from the view that is widely held, not least within the armed forces, that the TA as reformed will be a more relevant, more useful and more integrated part of our defence capability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not be converted to that view. I fear that I cannot offer him an early opportunity again to air his view.

Mr. Tim Collins: May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider her answer of a few moments ago to the request for a debate on the English question? She referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. When will the Government recognise that England is not merely a collection of regions but a nation? If the Labour party will not speak for England as a nation, others will.

Mrs. Beckett: I think, not for the first time, that the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that although the Conservative party may feel that it should speak for England, it is the Labour party that speaks for England. The Labour party has a majority of Members in England. Of course, the Conservative party has no Members in Scotland and Wales.
I will not reconsider my earlier reply. I think that the integrity of the United Kingdom is enormously important and the Government are determined to protect


it. The Conservative party is playing a dangerous game in raising such fire. I think also that it must be a matter of some concern to its Scottish and Welsh parties. What will Conservative candidates in Scotland and Wales say in the next general election? Will they say, "Vote for me although my party has rejected me and does not want me to play a part in Westminster"?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give further thought to the reply that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who asked for the opportunity during the recess to table written questions so that the Government could be held to account during that period? The right hon. Lady, in what I hope is not her penultimate appearance as Leader of the House, did not give a terribly satisfactory reply. It would be a lasting memorial to her years as Leader of the House if she were able to give us an assurance that the Government will be held to account during the recess.
Will the right hon. Lady deprecate the way in which certain Members have abused parliamentary privilege? Does she agree with me that accusations about individuals who cannot answer in the House should not be lightly made, and should be made only if there is real substance in the allegations? When we return from the recess, will she arrange for an early debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that touches on those and other important matters?

Mrs. Beckett: I said to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) that I thought that he had made an interesting point and that it was one to which I was prepared to give consideration, although it raises questions for the House authorities as well as for others. I would say to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that the tabling of written questions during a recess would be unprecedented. It is not a practice that the Government are withholding because it is something that no previous Government have been prepared to do or to concede; I am prepared to give the matter consideration but I am not able or prepared simply to say today, "Yes, this is a change that the Government will make." As for a lasting memorial, I am not in a memorial-erecting mood today. I appreciate the thought and I will bear it in mind.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the abuse of parliamentary privilege. He is right to say that matters should not be raised lightly under the cloak of privilege. However, the purpose of privilege is to allow matters to be raised. If privilege were being abused, that would be a matter for the Chair and not only for Members. I feel confident that Madam Speaker would draw us to order were that to be required. The hon. Gentleman has asked for a debate about that and I acknowledge that we will be seeking to find time for it. I cannot tell him now exactly when it will take place.

Consumer White Paper

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper published today to promote the interests of consumers. The White Paper forms a key part of our programme to support competition, innovation and enterprise.
Far too many people feel that they live in rip-off Britain, where they pay high prices compared to other countries, where cheats are allowed to prosper and move from one scam to another with ease, and where there are more shoddy goods than high-quality products.
For too long, the attitude in Britain has been that things could be worse, rather than that things should be better. We do not want to create an army of Victor Meldrews, but we do need confident and informed consumers. That is why the Government are publishing a comprehensive consumer strategy today.
Consumers who are knowledgeable and demanding get a good deal. They also promote innovation and improve the competitive position of business, which in turn means better products and keener prices for consumers. The White Paper will create a virtuous circle between knowledgeable consumers and business performance. It will do that in four ways.
First, the Government will work with business and consumer groups to introduce codes of practice that actually mean something, instead of giving false reassurance to consumers. Codes already pepper the Yellow Pages, but many are little more than marketing devices, offering no safeguards to customers.
The White Paper therefore proposes to introduce legislation to give the Office of Fair Trading powers to approve codes of practice that guarantee high standards of customer service, including proper redress if things should go wrong. That approval will not be a one-off. The Office of Fair Trading will withdraw its approval if the code no longer meets these principles. The OFT's seal of approval will provide at-a-glance assurance for the consumer.
We will also develop an e-commerce code, with industry and consumer groups, to be monitored by an independent body. As purchasing over the internet expands, it is vital that people feel that they have security when they make purchases. That is why we will introduce an e-hallmark, which will provide safeguards for the purchaser.
Secondly, we want to strengthen the role of those who protect the public against those who continually cheat consumers. The current law is ineffective. It offers no deterrent to the determined cheat, the perpetual scam merchant, and the exploiter of the weak and vulnerable, and no deterrent against the one-day sale in a hotel that is simply a rip-off, or the car repairer who fails to deliver and threatens those who complain. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know of many other examples that have been drawn to our attention.
The traders often disappear before action can be taken, then reappear elsewhere to conduct themselves in exactly the same way. The White Paper therefore proposes stronger action against such fraudsters. I want the OFT and trading standards officers in local authorities to have


powers to seek injunctions to stop traders carrying out specified practices, and to give the courts the power to ban them from all trading. Cheats who continually rip off their customers should be treated in this tough and responsible way.
We will consider the imposition of criminal sanctions where appropriate. We must also be able to respond quickly to new scams that might develop. We therefore propose a power to make orders by secondary legislation, which will specify that certain practices that have been shown to be harmful should be made illegal.
The third key proposal in the White Paper is better access to advice. People need quick, accurate answers to consumer problems. We will promote the development of a new advice network, building on the existing agencies. People will be able to see easily where they can get good-quality advice. We will also set up a new telephone helpline. Today, I have launched a new consumer gateway on the internet, to provide easy access to consumer advice and information.
Fourthly, we will improve research on consumer issues, so that our policies are based on sound evidence. Many feel that they are paying higher prices for everyday items than people in other countries. We can all understand why rice costs less in China than in Chingford, but why do trainers cost less in New York than in Newcastle, or a CD less in Washington than in Winsford?
I have, therefore, launched a full survey of international price comparisons. That will compare the prices of some 100 products across four countries—the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States. I already have powers to refer prices in a particular sector to the Director General of Fair Trading, and I will use those if the survey shows that the British consumer is being overcharged.
The White Paper contains some 70 measures, which cover a whole range of issues. We will make prices clearer to customers; consult on plans for tougher controls on misdescription of services; make sure that a pint of beer is a pint of beer; and make it easier for people to spot if the mileage reading on a car has been fiddled. We will also support and improve enforcement agencies so that they are better able to meet the expectations of consumers and business.
We do not want to distract business from its focus on serving its customers. We will in addition, therefore, begin a programme of reviewing all consumer protection legislation to find out whether it is still effective in meeting the needs of consumers, or whether it has simply become a burden on business with no apparent benefit to the consumer. To start the review, I have today published a consultation document on the law covering weights and measures.
The programme in the White Paper is ambitious. It reinforces our commitment to modern, open markets. It works with the grain of the knowledge economy. It promotes stronger business performance as well as a better deal for consumers. It rejects endless regulation as the saviour of the consumer in favour of competition, information and effective sanctions against rogue traders. It is forward looking and sets a framework for the future. It charts a new way forward in which consumers and business serve each other's interests—benefiting us all through quality products and improved services.
A fair deal for all our people—that is the vision of this White Paper, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I thank the Secretary of State for making the documentation available to me just over an hour ago; I am most grateful.
There is much that we can welcome in the White Paper because it gives the consumer a fair deal. In particular, we welcome the fact that research into identifying retail price differentials between the United States, Germany, France and the United Kingdom will be improved. It is important that we identify exactly how the pricing structure is achieved before there is any hasty action to name and shame. For example, the strength of the pound, employment costs, land prices and so on will have a different impact in different countries. Therefore we welcome the Government's initiative in that area.
The Secretary of State mentioned enforcement and, in particular, the Office of Fair Trading and trading standards officers, but he did not mention resources. Given existing legislation, never mind any additions that he may intend to make, it is clear that resources, particularly in trading standards departments, are extremely important. It would be helpful if he would say how much new money will be put into backing the White Paper, particularly for trading standards officers.
To give just one example, since the Government took office, trading standards officers have been charged with the task of identifying the GM content of processed foods. The technology developed in the past few years to carry out such tests is still extremely expensive and trading standards officers do not have the resources to carry out that task. We are looking to the Government to endorse the proposals in the White Paper with detail on how they intend to resource the promises.
The Secretary of State's decision to review all consumer legislation is welcome, as long as no additional burden is placed on business. It is not acceptable simply to consider the legislation with a view to adding to the unnecessary burdens on businesses. He says that he does not want us to be a nation of Victor Meldrews; I say to him, "I don't believe it!" because the hallmark of the Government is their introduction of ill-thought-through legislation and their subsequent reliance on endless regulations, which are a burden and a brake on enterprise and on business.
Consumers have more spending power today than ever before, and we support any initiatives to give them best value and to ensure that they are well informed, but may I ask the Secretary of State about a particular part of his statement? He said that the Government have been able to respond quickly to new scams, which is good, and that they therefore propose to introduce a power to make orders by secondary legislation, specifying that certain practices that have been shown to be harmful should be made illegal. Will his suggestion lead to the creation of a criminal offence? If so, is secondary legislation the appropriate means for dealing with such an offence? I should be grateful if he identified in more detail what he means by practices that have been shown to be harmful and exactly how the law will follow his suggestion through to ensure that such practices do not occur.
The Secretary of State also mentioned the important matter of electronic commerce, which is a growing area for consumers and something that we welcome. It will


create a lot of changes. He is, of course, aware that there is a global marketplace; people are already buying across national borders. He mentioned an e-hallmark to cover goods sold through electronic commerce. How will that work? Will it apply to goods sold from a base in the United Kingdom? Is he seeking EU standards? How will the e-hallmark work in respect of people who make electronic purchases beyond the shores of the United Kingdom, particularly from the EU and further afield? We should be grateful for more detail on that.
Bearing in mind that this point has been flagged up in the press, so one must assume that it is true, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he intends to release the draft e-commerce Bill in the next 24 hours? Can he also confirm that no statutory licensing provisions will appear in it? We welcome his reference to weights and measures, but the Government failed to push in Europe for an additional moratorium for market traders. They are concerned because the regulations will change at the turn of the year, and traders in loose goods will be required to label goods in metric and imperial weights. Why did not the Government press for the derogation to be extended for another 10 years? This matter will cause those traders and their consumers a great deal of concern.
I must pick the Secretary of State up on one point. At the beginning of his statement, he said that there are more shoddy goods than high-quality products. We want the scams to end, and we want people who produce defective goods and services to be brought to book so that consumers are protected from them, but I caution him: that sort of language talks down the majority of traders and the bulk of the goods in this country. He needs to strike a balance. I shall leave him with a quote from John Ruskin, who died in 1900—the turn of the century. He said:
It is not cheaper things we want to possess but expensive things that cost less.
Most consumers would agree with that; it is nothing new. If the White Paper can achieve that, it will have the support of Conservative Members.

Mr. Byers: I am grateful for the support that has been offered by the Opposition to many points in the White Paper. I hope that it is one of those sectors where, in a spirit of partnership, the House can go with the grain of what we seek to achieve. We will wish to pursue the issue in that way.
The hon. Lady raised a number of questions. On retail prices, clearly, a range of issues needs to be taken into account in addressing why products cost more in one country than in another. It is dangerous to look at the matter in a superficial, headline way. We need to get below the figures and to find out exactly what makes them up; I am very keen that we should do so. We should expose all the arguments, even if some may be more difficult to address than others.
With regard to legislation and burdens on business, I hope that, when the hon. Lady has had the chance to look at our document on weights and measures, she will get a clear feel for the direction in which we want to go, which is very much about reviewing the current position.
Most businesses are concerned about the mass of detailed regulations that come from the weights and measures legislation. We are considering ways in which to withdraw some of them to make life much easier

for business. That will not compromise the position of consumers, who will still have protection, but it will make life much easier for businesses.
On e-commerce and buying through the internet, in international transactions, there is a real issue about where the contract is actually made and about which legislation would apply if there were a dispute after a contract was not complied with. In the White Paper, we say that we will seek agreement with the company or organisation that is selling through the internet. If it agrees to meet certain standards in complying with our consumer law on guarantees of quality of product, delivery and so on, we will give it our e-hallmark. If businesses do not agree to that, they will not receive the hallmark. That will be a simple way in which consumers can see whether the person with whom they are dealing, whether based in the UK, continental Europe, America or elsewhere, is meeting those standards. It is also an effective way in which businesses can comply with the standards. The pay-off for them is that, on their website, they will be able to demonstrate the e-hallmark to show the consumer that they have guaranteed those standards.
We hope to publish the e-commerce Bill in draft tomorrow. The hon. Lady needs to wait until then to see the detail, although she may have a good idea of what might be included in it.
We need to be able to move quickly on new scams. It is a dramatically fast-moving area: new scams are developing almost daily. We may find that, if we try to put something in stone today, we shall be out of touch by tomorrow, so we need some flexibility, although I take the point that criminal sanctions are a significant step. I said in the statement that we were considering criminal sanctions in certain sectors. We will consult fully before we embark on that road.
The hon. Lady makes an important point on enforcement. If we are to ensure that, day to day, enforcement is effective, we will need to provide trading standard officers with the means to deliver on the ground. Because of the priority that we attach to the White Paper and to consumers, whom we now want to bring centre stage, I will devote from my Department—redirecting resources that are earmarked within the budget to go elsewhere—an extra £30 million to deliver on the White Paper proposals.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I now call Mr. Dennis Turner.

Hon. Members: He has just walked in.

Mr. Dennis Turner: I was sitting here when I listened to the excellent statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I should like to say without any further interruption how much I appreciate the White Paper, particularly the reference to giving the millions of beer drinkers in this country the protection and consumer support that they deserve. In the previous Session, I tried to introduce the Weights and Measures (Beer and Cider) Bill which sought to do just that. I look at the expressions of Conservative Members. The Conservative party had the opportunity to support earlier legislation in the interests of beer drinkers, but it refused to do so. In 1992, it took similar legislation out of the programme and refused to give that


protection—what a contrast with the Labour Government and the Secretary of State, to whom I am extremely grateful. The beer drinkers of Britain will also be extremely grateful. I hope that, as a consequence of the White Paper, before too long we shall see this long-overdue legislation and that every beer drinker in Britain will get the fair measures that they deserve.

Mr. Byers: I look forward to raising a full measure with my hon. Friend later today to celebrate the full measure contained within the White Paper. I am sure that the White Paper will be welcomed by beer drinkers throughout the country and by millions of other people. I compliment my hon. Friend on raising this matter over a number of years to try to get a fair deal for the British beer drinker. I am delighted that we have been able to find space in the White Paper to take up his best proposals. This is a good example of a Government working for everyone, including beer drinkers, unlike the Conservative Government who worked just for the few.

Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for providing me with his statement an hour before he delivered it. Incidentally, it puts excellent flesh on the bones of the summary provided by BBC Online from about 9 o'clock this morning.
I welcome the first proposal and should like to raise a few points on the key principles for consumers: access, choice, information and redress. On codes of practice, it is important that trade associations achieve a change of emphasis from self-interest to consumer interests. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends self-regulation to be a universal concept, applied wherever possible, across all sectors of commerce and trading? Codes of practice are one thing, but compliance with them is another. Will he confirm that non-compliance with the code of practice would be an automatic cause for redress by consumers, with prosecution to follow where appropriate? Will he confirm that the breaking of the code of conduct will trigger the process?
Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I welcome the strengthening of trading standards officers' powers. The Secretary of State mentioned the £30 million in his coffers. He knows that trading standards officers are incredibly overstretched. What discussions has he had with his colleagues in the Cabinet to ensure that more resources are available to strengthen trading standards departments in local authorities, which are at the sharp end?
I welcome the promotion of the advice network for consumers set out in the statement. How will that link in with the CBA network—[HON. MEMBERS: "CAB".] Yes, I beg hon. Members' pardon. Citizens advice bureaux are often the first port of call when consumers seek redress if they have a problem with goods or products. [Interruption.] Although I enjoy the humour of Conservative Back-Bench Members, this is an important issue. What consultation is the Secretary of State carrying out, and what proposals does he have to enable CABs to provide better legal advice, leading to redress in the courts, for people who find themselves in that position?
Consumers have a right to full information about the goods that they purchase and the choice available. What plans does the Secretary of State have to enforce full

and clear labelling on food products? I am thinking particularly about products that may contain genetically modified organisms.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked about metric weights and measures. Do the Government intend to pursue the opportunities that they still have to preserve imperial weights and measures at the point of sale for goods that are sold in bulk?
We all welcome the strengthening of consumer protection, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what assessment he has made of the additional costs that will inevitably be borne by the taxpayer, and by business?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman welcomed the broad thrust of my proposals, and I welcome the broad thrust of the support that he has expressed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of trade associations. I think it important to make clear what we mean by the seal of approval from the Office of Fair Trading. The code will be purely voluntary. Members of the public will recognise the seal of approval; they will be able to see it clearly in Yellow Pages. It will meet a standard—

Mr. Chidgey: A kitemark?

Mr. Byers: A kitemark, perhaps; call it what you will.
That is the nature of the seal of approval that we want to introduce for businesses that sign up to the code of practice. However, there will still be businesses that do not sign up, and customers will need to be aware that they are dealing with organisations that have not received the seal of approval. The full range of the law will apply to businesses—as it does to all businesses—that fail to deliver on the contracts into which they have entered, and do not provide proper compensation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about trading standards officers. Yesterday, we had a useful meeting with the group representing trading standards officers' organisations, which has been closely involved in the development of the policies in the White Paper.
There remains the question of how we can target the extra funding to ensure that it is used specifically for consumer-related matters. We shall be considering whether we can find a mechanism enabling us to do that, through local authorities, and we shall be engaging in discussions to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of the role of citizens advice bureaux. No doubt many hon. Members' constituencies contain CABs that play a vital role in the provision of this and other information. We have just allocated an extra £1.3 million to the CABs nationally, so that they can use their computer network to provide advice on consumer matters as well as other issues. The CABs have also been closely involved in the details of the White Paper, along with the Consumers Association. They broadly welcome our approach, and especially welcome the possible opportunity for CABs to get together with other information-providing organisations and to be located in the high street, so that they can give consumers information more readily.
The hon. Gentleman asked about labelling. We insist that any food with GM ingredients in tins and other containers must be clearly labelled: that is the approach that we have taken, and will continue to take.
As for the issue of imperial measures, there is no question of our preventing people from going into a high-street shop in Wallsend and asking for a pound of Cox's apples. We are also ensuring that shops do not suffer an undue burden because of the dual pricing that will be necessary. Consumers will not be affected: they will still be able to ask for a pound of apples, a pint of milk or a pint of beer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I appeal for short, sharp questions—and, of course, short, sharp replies?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I wholeheartedly welcome the policy of sanctions against rogue traders. I think that this will be the key legislation in the current Parliament, because the public want change. They want an end to rip-off Britain. But what are we going to do about premium phonelines? People telephone a number, and are ripped off. What are we going to do to stop that?

Mr. Byers: I agree that strong action against rogue traders will make a huge difference to many of those whom we represent. Let me give clear notice that we intend to introduce strong, tough measures, reflecting the wishes of the British people. That will, of course, require legislation. There is nothing worse for a person who works hard all week and then goes out at the weekend to spend some of his own money than to find that he has been ripped off by one of these rogue traders—one of these scam merchants. We will act to stop that.
Premium phonelines are a matter primarily for Oftel, and we are discussing with Oftel how we can improve the present position. As most hon. Members recognise, it needs to be dealt with.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the e-commerce hallmark will include any guarantee of the security of the electronic infrastructure, and what discussions he has had with the industries involved on secure electronic infrastructure? Will he also say whether the better regulation task force has been involved in the White Paper's preparation or will be expected to comment on it? How many deregulation measures does he expect to bring before the Deregulation Committee as a consequence of the White Paper?

Mr. Byers: I think that the hon. Lady will find that the weights and measures consultation document proposes a number of deregulation measures and that it will be very much welcomed by business. The better regulation task force has been fully consulted on the White Paper's details and it is supportive of our proposals.
The e-commerce hallmark is intended to ensure that people know that if they deal over the internet they retain their normal consumer rights. The e-commerce hallmark will address that issue.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I welcome the White Paper. I also very much welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis in the White Paper on the need to make markets work properly. If we have a choice between

competitive markets and overweening regulation, we should realise that consumers are served best by better-working markets.
In recent months, I have been very much involved in the financial services and markets pre-legislative inquiry, which has highlighted the fact that big financial decisions—such as buying a pension or obtaining a mortgage—can not only change consumers' lives but dog them throughout their lives. I hope that the emphasis will be on providing good information to consumers so that they are able to make a reasonable choice. Communication and information are essential for people who, without them, are lumbered with poor deals, poor pensions and poor mortgages.

Mr. Byers: Once hon. Members have had the opportunity to examine in detail the philosophy underpinning the White Paper, I think that they will realise that it very much recognises that consumers benefit when markets work well, and that not only businesses benefit from effective markets. We have no doubt that competition must be the driver in ensuring that consumers get a good deal or that competition creates lasting consumer benefit.
On the specific point about financial services, the White Paper is very clear in stating that those who are considering giving a mortgage, for example, will have to state very clearly the rates of interest that will be charged and present that information in a manner that is easily understood by those who are probably about to embark on the biggest financial transaction that any of us undertake. Those people have to have clear and precise information, and the White Paper proposes measures that will ensure that they are properly informed.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: In his statement, the Secretary of State raised several e-commerce issues. Will he say more precisely how the independent body that he mentioned will be constituted to address those issues? Will he also be more specific about the "knowledge economy" that he mentioned?

Mr. Byers: The knowledge economy is a recognition that whereas, in years gone by, the prime responsibility of business and of Government was to encourage investment in capital such as plant, machinery and equipment, if we are to win in the 21st century, investment will have to be in human capital such as skills, learning, knowledge and education. We have to respond to that priority. However, we are not saying that traditional spheres are not part of the knowledge economy. The hon. Gentleman made a good point in saying that if we are to be really successful we shall have to marry the two together. One of my priorities is to ensure that traditional spheres such as manufacturing both embrace and receive the benefits of the knowledge-driven economy of the future.
The independent body on the e-hallmark will have responsibility for judging whether a business qualifies to receive the hallmark. We think that it is far better if businesses themselves are involved in the process, which we shall have to monitor. The Office of Fair Trading, too, will have a role to play. Nevertheless, that is the role that the independent body will play in ensuring that when we award the e-hallmark for internet trading—whether in the


United Kingdom or internationally—people will know that consumer law applying in the United Kingdom will apply also to that transaction.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: A great deal was said in May by candidates of all parties for the Scottish Parliament on stronger action against fraudsters, the powers of trading standards officers in local authorities, criminal sanctions and scams. How does this measure fit in with legislation that the Scottish Parliament claims as its own?

Mr. Byers: These are reserved powers, but we will work closely with the devolved Administrations to make sure that our proposals are implemented in a way that is compatible with and supported within them.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that one of the products to be the subject of international price comparison will be the pump price of petrol and diesel? Will he give a further assurance that that will include also comparative rates of tax across the international market?
Will e-hallmarking be carried out by the e-envoy? What happened to the two candidates for e-envoy who were submitted by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to the Prime Minister's office in March? Have they both said they are not willing to take on the job? Does the Secretary of State think that giving a decision to job applicants within a reasonable space of time ought to be part of the new consumer standard?

Mr. Byers: The appointment of e-envoy will be made by the Prime Minister, who will make his decision known in the near future. Petrol and diesel prices are constantly monitored by the European Commission.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Many people in my constituency are fed up to the back teeth with being ripped off by one-day salespeople—for example, table-top salespeople at Cheltenham—and will be encouraged that the Government are at last tackling the problem. Will there be an obligation on one-day salespeople to give prior notification to trading standards officers that they will be in an area? It is all very well talking about criminal sanctions but, by their very nature, those people are literally here today and gone tomorrow. The question of prior notification is central.

Mr. Byers: The people to whom my hon. Friend has referred are well known to trading standards officers, but their frustration at the moment is that they have no effective powers to deal with them. Our measures, which will require primary legislation, will be able to tackle at source the type of activity to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In his welcome statement, the Secretary of State did not mention counterfeiting or whether he intends to take action on it. When he attacked hotel sales and table-top sales, should he not have put greater emphasis on saying to people, "Buyer beware"? People who buy from reputable retailers have protection, but some take a chance and buy cheaper goods from areas without the protection that we would

expect from larger retailers. The right hon. Gentleman will be causing great trouble if he gives the impression today that the Government are able to underwrite every one of the millions of transactions that take place in this country. The one thing that disturbs me about his statement is that he is giving a false impression that somehow the Government will stop all these transactions.

Mr. Byers: If I have given that impression, I now have the opportunity, thanks to the hon. Gentleman, to say clearly that we recognise that the principle of caveat emptor—buyer beware—is important. There is a responsibility on consumers to make sure that they get goods that meet the given description. We believe that we will be able to achieve that only if consumers are informed, knowledgeable and confident, and those principles underpin the White Paper. We are taking action on intellectual property rights and counterfeit, and we are discussing how we can make the provisions in relation to intellectual property more effective.

Jane Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend offer an assurance to organisations such as Yellow Pages, which employs 900 people in my constituency, that they can boost and maintain public confidence in themselves and that people who find a service or product through them will be safe from rogue traders?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for the important role that services such as Yellow Pages play; they are a great source of convenience. I am pleased to say that there will be a dedicated part of Yellow Pages for those organisations that have received the Office of Fair Trading seal of approval, which will make life easier for the many consumers who have to find a builder, joiner or engineer in a hurry to do work as a matter of urgency.

Mr. James Gray: We are very grateful for what the Minister said about the proper labelling of foods containing GM products, but is he aware of the widespread abuse of the country of origin labelling of meat products? Meat pies labelled as made in Britain may well contain meat from cows that were grazed and slaughtered in Bolivia and were merely minced in the United Kingdom. Will the White Paper take account of that and put a stop to the abuse? If it does, both consumers and farmers in my constituency will certainly welcome it.

Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pursuing that matter and we are raising it in the World Trade Organisation because we think that it must be dealt with internationally. We want the country of origin to be clearly identified.

Mr. David Borrow: I want to highlight the weakness of the consumer in respect of ancillary services. The White Paper deals with hotel telephone charges. I want to raise the related matter of the problems of mobile home owners. Once they have purchased their home and pay ground rent, they are ripped off for ancillary services. Will my right hon. Friend take that weakness on board when the legislation is introduced?

Mr. Byers: There is specific legislation dealing with the position of the mobile home owner. I listened to my


hon. Friend and I will certainly reflect on the need to review the law in the light of the White Paper and the consultations surrounding it.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State take on board the fact that if, despite his best intentions, he undermines the principle of buyer beware, the message from today will be beware Byers? Will the Bill become law in time for the next general election and apply to the next Labour manifesto, because many voters regret the fact that it did not apply to the fine print of the current manifesto?

Mr. Byers: We had a raffle about who would be the first to say, "Byers beware" or "Beware Byers"—not a raffle, a guess.

Mr. Alan Duncan: A sweepstake.

Mr. Byers: Indeed, a sweepstake; thank you so much. I always wondered what role the hon. Gentleman was meant to play on the Front Bench there. He is very helpful and I shall pass a note of thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for so sagely appointing him. I have quite forgotten what the question was now.
I am sure that our manifesto for the next general election will prove as popular and as accurate as the previous one.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Two weeks ago, Volvo was found guilty of pricing malpractice, and yesterday there was a newspaper headline—"£6 billion rip-off"—referring to the Competition Commission's public hearings about car sales in Britain. Can any action be taken against Volvo under existing law, and will the White Paper help to tackle the enormous scandal of thousands of pounds more being charged for a car in Britain than in European markets?

Mr. Byers: I agree that it is a scandal. It is a matter for regret that the law is ineffective. A whole range of powers will be introduced next year as a result of the Competition Act 1998. Next week we will announce the sanctions that we intend to use under that legislation. They will be significant and will make companies examine carefully their conduct in this important area. I am afraid that the whole Volvo saga shows that the law was deficient and that we need to have new remedies in place. We are providing them in the competition legislation that will come into force next year. The measures in this White Paper will help too.

Mr. Ian Pearson: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on today's statement and the White Paper. In particular I welcome the proposed e-commerce code and e-hallmark. Young people in my constituency increasingly buy CDs over the internet from the United States because they are typically 30 per cent. cheaper. I am sure that many more will do so when they have guaranteed consumer rights. I am sure also that American companies will not be slow to apply for our e-hallmark. What can my right hon. Friend do to encourage British companies so that in future my constituents can buy goods over the internet from Birmingham rather than Boston?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that the e-hallmark will be an effective way

to give reassurance to people who will increasingly trade and buy goods over the internet. It is already happening with books and, in particular, CDs. I have no doubt that when we can get in place a framework with which consumers feel at ease and so want to deal over the internet, companies and businesses in Birmingham as well as Boston will want to be part of the new information age and the way in which transactions will take place in the 21st century.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we already have similar types of controls on people such as solicitors and doctors, and he will know how dissatisfied people often are with these controls which are expensive to put in place. Is it not the case that often well-meaning Ministers add additional costs to the honest trader while the dishonest trader gets away scotfree? Clearly, we are trying to help the honest trader to improve trade rather than to penalise him. How will the Secretary of State's magic bullet get over this real problem?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In drawing up the White Paper we have consulted representatives of the building trade—joiners and so on—to ensure that our proposals go with the grain of what they want. The hon. Gentleman will find that today's proposals have been welcomed. Nevertheless, over the months and years ahead we will continue to work in partnership with legitimate business because in tackling the cowboy builder we do not want to affect the legitimate trader. That is why we will work in partnership with business to make sure that we get it right.

Mr. Geraint Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for drawing a line in the sand between Arthur Daley Tory rip-off Britain and new Labour consumer empowerment. Does he agree that the combination of internet sales with the single currency and e-hallmarking will give enormous power to the consumer in terms of relative price comparisons—the single currency makes that easy to see—and quality assurance which we should herald as a great success for Britain?
On a separate issue, can my right hon. Friend give any assurances that he will look into the bundling of products such as mortgages and insurance, which often confuses consumers and leads to excess commissions—indeed, unbundling?

Mr. Byers: On the bundling of financial services, my hon. Friend will be aware that today Mr. Don Cruickshank, who has been heading up the banking review on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is publishing his interim report which will address some of those issues specifically. We welcome the proposals that he is putting in place which will benefit consumers. The British consumer is already beginning to compare prices. That has been one of the drivers behind today's proposals. That is why we are looking at more than 100 products, comparing prices in the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Germany. That will be of real benefit to British consumers.

Mr. John Bercow: Does the White Paper deal with the growing problem of unsolicited faxes, which affects thousands of businesses and consumers the


length and breadth of the country? Moreover, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this important issue was originally aired earlier this Session in a ten-minute Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), with warm support from both sides of the House? Given that Members of Parliament, among others, regularly receive a stream of faxes, regrettably sometimes from people who appear to be a sandwich short of a picnic, early action to deal with the problem would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Byers: There is a regional difference here: it is a pork pie short of a picnic in the north-east of England.
I compliment the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) on his ten-minute Bill, which drew the matter to the attention of all Members of the House. We have been discussing with the director general of Oftel how we can carry this forward. He is putting in place proposals to allow people to secure their fax machines so that they do not receive unsolicited faxes. That is touched on in the White Paper.

Dr. George Turner: I warmly welcome the fact that we are to tackle the problem of cowboy builders and tradesmen, who are the real despair of many pensioners, especially in my constituency.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the real rip-off in our pubs and clubs nowadays is the price of soft drinks? If we compare the prices in the supermarkets with what we are charged in pubs and clubs, it is clear that the typical family in Norfolk is being asked to pay sometimes as much per pint for the child's lemonade as for the father's beer. As we want young people and drivers to drink soft drinks, should not something be done to deal with the rip-off that families currently experience?

Mr. Byers: Those Members of the House who, like my hon. Friend and me, buy just soft drinks will know that the costs are excessive. Many consumers do not realise the cost because they often mix soft drinks with alcoholic ones. It is a real problem. We need to guarantee that prices are posted so that people can see what they are paying. The most effective way to drive down prices is to make consumers aware of what they are paying. That is what we intend to do, and we are discussing with the industry how that can best be secured.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about cowboy builders. They often prey on some of the most vulnerable members of our society. We all know of people, especially pensioners, who have had work done by a builder and have been intimidated when they find that the work has not been done properly. Once we have established the system, they will be able to go to a builder who has the code of approval. They will have the security and assurance of knowing that the person is technically competent and has a financial guarantee to underpin the work.

Points of Order

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) raised with the Leader of the House the question of the abuse of privilege in the House. The Leader of the House rightly said that it was a matter for the Chair. I draw to your attention the fact that yesterday the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) used parliamentary privilege to attack the treasurer of the Conservative party. I understand that on "The World at One" today, the editor of The Times admitted that he had provided at least some of the information that formed the basis of the hon. Gentleman's attack.
Given that this is not the first time that a Member of the House has used parliamentary privilege to be an agent of a national newspaper—the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was used by The Guardian in the last Parliament—do you consider it time that the House took action to ensure that hon. Members do not allow themselves to be used as pawns for national newspapers seeking to protect the position of their editors by increasing their circulation at the expense of the truth?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): First, I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have had the courtesy to notify the hon. Member of whom he makes a criticism. Secondly, on the main point made by the hon. Gentleman, the matter is not one for the Chair. If the House wants to change its rules, that is entirely up to the House; it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Howarth: May I be clear about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You suggest that it is not a matter for the Chair, although the Leader of the House said that she thought that that was the case. On a point of accuracy, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West well knows that, on many occasions, I have mentioned his part in the matter that I raised, so I did him no discourtesy. The House will probably agree that the hon. Member for The Wrekin has already done enough discourtesy to the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Please let me answer. Regardless of the personal opinions of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), he should always notify an hon. Member of whom he intends to make a criticism. The use of privilege is for hon. Members to consider; it must be used responsibly. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On Monday, after the debate on the Railways Bill, and yesterday, in Madam Speaker's ruling on that matter, the Government were pressed to make clear what the progress of the Bill would be. Today in business questions the Leader of the House failed to take the opportunity to do so. Will you please rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after due consideration, that, if the Government do not spell out their timetable for the Bill's progress by


the time we go into recess, the Bill cannot progress beyond Prorogation in November? May I refer you to the first report of the Modernisation Committee? Paragraph 70 states:
Any changes proposed in this area of the legislative process must clearly contain stringent safeguards.
The report pointed out that the House of Lords would also have to be involved. Paragraph 102 refers to the need for
the identification by the Government as early as possible of any Bill it wished to be subject to a carry-over procedure.
We have reached the point at which any need for a carry-over procedure for that Bill should be stated. I should be grateful if you would rule on the matter in due course.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once again, that is not a matter for the Chair. Bills die at Prorogation.

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have other business to consider.

Mr. Bercow: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance on that point; however, you will be aware that several right hon. and hon. Members have inquired about the procedure for the handling of legislation. When the issue was raised with Madam Speaker yesterday, she advised Members who were concerned about it to raise the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: No one did.

Mr. Bercow: There was no opportunity to do so.
Can you now advise the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether, in future, it is intended that there should be published criteria according to which Bills will or will not be referred to a Select Committee, and according to which there will or will not be two Second Reading debates rather than one? That information is of the utmost importance, and the Leader of the House is in a position to provide it. May we please have guidance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The only guidance that I can offer the hon. Gentleman is that it is nothing to do

with me. The hon. Gentleman may want to take the matter up with the Leader of the House—[Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Lady is a most approachable Minister; the hon. Gentleman should go to see her.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you for your previous ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I also ask you to guide the House in respect of "Erskine May"? Page 536 of the latest edition states:
A Commons bill reported from a select…committee is normally recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.
Given that the Railways Bill will not come back from the Select Committee for Report until the middle of November, which is effectively the end of the Session, and given that the Bill cannot be amended in the Select Committee, will you please rule that the Bill will require a further Committee stage and that it is therefore bound to die at the end of this Session?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was referred to the Select Committee; it was not committed to the Select Committee.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I apologise for taking up the Chair's time on this highly complex matter. It confuses many of us, although it would not do so if the Government had made their position clear. "Erskine May" refers to a Bill being reported from a Select Committee, regardless of the way in which it went to the Committee in the first place. Whether the Bill is referred or sent to the Committee, the Committee is charged with reporting back to this House. According to "Erskine May", at that point it is required to be "recommitted" to another Committee. In those circumstances, may we have the advice of the Chair on the likelihood that time will run out for the Railways Bill in this Session?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to the advice I have already given the hon. Gentleman. It may not be satisfactory to him, but it is the best that I can offer.

Orders of the Day — Food Standards Agency Bill and Employment Relations Bill (Allocation of Time)

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Food Standards Bill and on the Employment Relations Bill—

Orders of the Day — Timetable

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Food Standards Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Orders of the Day — Questions to be put

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(1).

(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a New Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put, under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on Amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Amendments or Motions.

3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(2).

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put

forthwith a separate Question on any other amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(8) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(9) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting on the allotted day.

Orders of the Day — Miscellaneous

4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings—

(a) on the Food Standards Bill at today's sitting, and
(b) on the Employment Relations Bill on the allotted day,
and those proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on either of the Bills.

6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken or to recommit the Food Standards Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either of the Bills except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

8. The Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to proceedings on any such Motion.

9.—(1) If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16 December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Standards Bill.

(2) If on the allotted day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock (or, in accordance with the Order of the House [16 December 1998], Four o'clock), and proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill have begun before that time, or if such a Motion stands over from an earlier day, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill.

10. If at the sitting today or on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1(1) or (2), no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Interpretation

11. In this Order, 'allotted day' means any day on which the Employment Relations Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

I propose to be extremely brief, as I am conscious that time taken on this debate will be time taken from debate on the measure. The Employment Relations Bill and the Food Standards Bill are important elements of the Government's legislative programme—indeed, both were referred to in our manifesto. Both Bills have already received substantial discussion and consideration in the House. As the whole House will be aware, the Food Standards Bill, in particular, received an unprecedented amount of scrutiny—public consultation, which produced 1,000 replies; a Special Select Committee; a Second


Reading; and an ordinary Standing Committee. The Government are now keen to maintain the momentum of the measure.

It was not possible to complete consideration of the Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill last night; that is why it was necessary to table an allocation of time motion today. The motion must be seen against the background of a lack of progress and of the difficulties that have occurred throughout the week. I fear that it has become quite clear—

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: As the right hon. Lady was present during the earlier exchanges, will she explain to the House why, at the start of this week, it was necessary to take up a whole day's sitting on a Second Reading of a Bill that clearly cannot progress to fulfilment during this Session? That has now caused the right hon. Lady to introduce a guillotine motion on other important Bills.

Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not propose to get involved in that matter, for the simple reason that, as I have pointed out, I do not want to take time from the matters that we are now discussing-the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is not one of them. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends did not have the chance to raise the matter at business questions, but that is not a matter for me. The issue was not raised with me and, consequently, I did not deal with it. [Interruption.] I do not propose to deal with it now, no matter how often it is raised. If hon. Gentlemen want to raise it, they should please not waste the time of the House.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am confused about what happened yesterday to make the right hon. Lady decide to curtail business. She will know that the House expected that the Access to Justice Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I shall not allow hon. Members to mention other Bills. We have an allocation of time—

Mr. Bruce: On timing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have an allocation of time motion before us, which specifically relates to the Food Standards Bill and the Employment Relations Bill. No other Bill should come into that discussion.

Mr. Bruce: I apologise for naming that particular Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, because of the way in which yesterday's business was conducted, both the Leader of the House and I did not actually return from Buckingham Palace in time to vote. We were expecting a vote at 6 o'clock, but the vote took place 20 minutes earlier. The right hon. Lady will probably remember that the second vote was so early that she arrived from the Palace still wearing her hat—looking very elegant. Surely, we were moving faster yesterday and today's guillotine motion is not justified.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes some kind remarks, but flattery will get him nowhere.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the specific timing expected for a particular vote, and what that indicated as to the passage of legislation. He alleges that a particular vote was expected for a particular time; that is a matter that

relates to the information that he had. I do not want to take up too much time, so I simply say to him and to the House, that, through the week, it had become clear that a small number of Opposition Members were keen to disrupt the smooth passage and progress of business. I make no complaint about that, although it can be annoying to other Members. Such tactics are sometimes regarded as trivial, but they are a perfectly legitimate operation of the Opposition's role and of their rights in the House. I have no quarrel with that whatever.
However, as all hon. Members know, rights involve responsibilities. The Government have a responsibility to protect our business and to see it through and to protect the private Members' business that is set down for consideration tomorrow. That is the last day available to consider private Members' business and many hon. Members hope to see their legislation progress. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raised that matter with me during business questions.
Events throughout the week led to our conclusion that a few hon. Members were keen to slow down progress. Although I recognise that programme motions are preferable to guillotine motions, even if programme motions had been agreed on this legislation—and they were not—we would then have had to ask whether that promise could have been delivered. The Government chose to move this guillotine motion against that background and in the light of events during the past week.

Mr. David Maclean: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Lady's comments. Is she suggesting that, because about five Opposition Back Benchers kept Labour Members up until beyond midnight on Monday, she proposes to guillotine the Food Standards Bill—which had Opposition support in Committee, which came out of Committee bang on time and upon which I think the Government will admit they received the full co-operation of my right hon. and hon. Friends? Is that the right hon. Lady's justification for chopping ruthlessly the time allowed for its consideration today?

Mrs. Beckett: We are not chopping it ruthlessly. We have provided adequate time to discuss the Bill and that will occur so long as we do not take up too much time considering this motion. I am well aware of, and the Government recognise, the part played by Opposition Members in the Committee's considerations—in which I understand the right hon. Gentleman also played a distinguished role. It is not a matter of time, or of people being kept up late. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that, of the nine Divisions that were called on Monday night after a couple of hours of debate, seven related to statutory instruments and all of them had been to Standing Committee and passed unopposed.
Let us not be mealy-mouthed about this. We all recognise and understand the tactics employed—they are legitimate tactics for Opposition Members to use. However, it is equally legitimate for the Government to recognise when they are being used and to take the decisions that a Government must take.

Sir George Young: The motion before us would curtail the debate on two Bills—the


Employment Relations Bill and the Food Standards Bill—neither of which we have sought to delay. At no time in her speech did the Leader of the House allege that the Opposition intended to obstruct the measures. These Bills have been caught up in some wider Government agenda—about which they have been less than explicit—which requires some display of virility and the exercise of their majority in this place before we rise for the summer recess.
I shall deal first with the Employment Relations Bill and to the events of yesterday. The House began considering the Access to Justice Bill and the Lords reasons for disagreeing with House of Commons amendments at 3.56 pm. Consideration concluded three hours later after one Division, which was called by the Opposition. There was no delay and no evidence of any obstruction of the Government's business. We then began considering Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill at about 7 o'clock. By 10 o'clock, there had been one vote—which we had called—and we had finished considering all the issues in which we were interested, with the exception of two upon which we wanted to have a brief debate and to vote. The rest of the business was Government amendments.
I have looked through yesterday's Hansard to see whether there was any filibustering by my hon. Friends. I saw some references to "The Goon Show" and to "Hancock's Half Hour" but they were made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who also asked whether druids were exempt from the minimum wage. The Secretary of State made the longest speech in the debate leading up to the guillotine announcement. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was called to order in column 1288 of Hansard for moving away from consideration of the amendment. Only one of my right hon. Friends was called to order, at column 1283 of Hansard, for straying from the subject under consideration. There were no long speeches, only good, serious contributions to the argument.
A 10 o'clock motion on yesterday's Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister would have enabled the House to sit beyond 10 o'clock, and I have no reason to doubt that consideration of the Bill could have concluded at a reasonable hour. The Order Paper then listed for consideration another Bill, the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Bill, which is clearly not very important, as it has now disappeared into the spill-over. There was nothing in the conduct of the Employment Relations Bill yesterday to justify imposing a guillotine.
The House did not begin its final deliberations on the Food Standards Bill yesterday because it was due to be considered today. We did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading and we dealt with it in Committee in three weeks, which is a reasonable time scale. I assure the House that the Opposition did not intend to disrupt the passage of the Bill today, and it is simply absurd to imply that we wanted somehow to threaten private Members' business tomorrow.
The Leader of the House asserted yesterday—she repeated that assertion today—that we did not agree to a programme motion. That is a wholly new doctrine: "Sign this programme motion or we will guillotine you." That is not how the business of the House is arranged.

Mrs. Beckett: rose—

Sir George Young: Perhaps the right hon. Lady would allow me to finish my point. We gave an undertaking, which I believe that the Government accepted, that we would not delay the passage of the Bill.

Mrs. Beckett: That is not what the Government are saying. If the right hon. Gentleman looks over the pattern of events this Session, he will see that, on the last few occasions when the Government felt obliged to guillotine legislation, we sought programme motions that were refused. When we embarked on the process of debate, there was then substantial delay. So, unfortunately, there is a history of the refusal to agree to a programme motion leading to subsequent delay, which has made it necessary to impose a guillotine.
Although we were only a third of the way down the amendment paper when I made my business statement last night, the right hon. Gentleman makes much of the fact that the Opposition wanted to raise only one or two minor points, which he implies could have been dealt with speedily. Why did no Opposition Member approach the Government side to explain that the Opposition wished to continue for another half an hour, an hour, or whatever? We all know that that is a perfectly ordinary way of discussing and arranging business through the usual channels. However, it was not done.

Sir George Young: The right hon. Lady has raised many points. However, with respect, she did not deal with the final point that I made before her intervention—perhaps because she had decided to intervene before I made it. We gave an undertaking—which I believe that the Government accepted—that we would not delay the passage of the Food Standards Bill. That denies the right hon. Lady's reference to an earlier case, when no similar undertaking was given. In this case, we said that, although we did not agree to a programme motion, we would not delay the passage of the Bill. I believe that that undertaking was accepted.
The Leader of the House said that there was no implied threat. However, she said yesterday:
It is the Government's lack of certainty about proper progress of business—not just as a result of the official Opposition, although I remind the hon. Gentleman that they did not agree to a programme motion on the Bill—that has led us reluctantly to take this step."—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1296].
That is a clear implication that, if we did not agree to the programme motion, we would expose ourselves to a guillotine. That is not how the House does business, and I hope that we will not be confronted with that sort of argument in the future.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Many hon. Members who were in the Chamber on Monday night witnessed Divisions for two hours—if our constituents had seen it, they would have thought that we were barmy—on issues that had appeared before Standing Committees and been agreed without Divisions. The right


hon. Gentleman had no control over the Opposition Whips or his Back Benchers that day. He can do nothing to stop those people disrupting Parliament. The Government have every right to protect the business of the House if he cannot protect us from half a dozen of his Back Benchers.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. The guillotine has nothing to do with these two Bills; it is revenge for what happened on Monday.
The Leader of the House has announced another guillotined debate for next Monday on yet another Bill. So the Government are planning to end the Session in the high-handed, dictatorial manner to which we have become accustomed.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Leader of the House is motivated not by revenge but by judgment, because the Opposition have shown that they are singularly incapable of controlling their own Back Benchers?

Sir George Young: The Government are guillotining discussion on two Bills on which the Opposition have given undertakings. At no time in the speech that we have just heard did the right hon. Lady challenge our undertakings or imply that we were going to obstruct the Bills. As she said yesterday, and as we have heard today, the guillotine has nothing to do with the Bills; it is a result of what happened on Monday. When I asked yesterday what was the reason for the guillotine, the right hon. Lady said:
Time has been taken up in the House.
One wonders what the House is for if not to take up time.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman embarrassed by the fact that his party is being run by about six or seven vigilantes who are disrupting the business of the House? He ought to be ashamed of trying to defend them.

Sir George Young: That is an absurd allegation about a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who take their duties to the House as seriously as did a number of Labour Members during the 18 years when we were in government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to cast no aspersion on the late Bob Cryer or on the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Is he directing at them the remarks that he has just made about some of my colleagues? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. We cannot have hon. Members shouting across the Chamber.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that, in his study of Hansard, my right hon. Friend will have noticed that, on Monday night, we were having an important debate about an entirely new procedure, which was being invented on the hoof by the Government for their own purposes, and that debate was foreclosed by the Government's action without any attempt to answer the important questions being asked. It is Labour Members who are not taking their responsibilities to the House as seriously as they should.

Sir George Young: I quite agree, and my hon. Friends' reward is simply to be called "vigilantes" by Labour Members.
The reason given by the right hon. Lady last night for the guillotine was that it was in view
of the lack of progress on business this week".
Later, she said that
it was the progress and the general climate of the handling of business over the week…that led to the Government's concern."—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1292–95]
In other words, discussion is being guillotined on these Bills not because the Government are concerned about what might happen to them, but because, as we have heard, the Government wasted Monday on the Second Reading of a Bill that will have to have another Second Reading when we return in November. The House sat late, perfectly legitimately, and not nearly as late as we used to sit in 1979 and 1980, when we had many more late-night sittings. It is deeply disturbing that, after one late night, the Labour Government have overreacted in this way.

Mr. Geraint Davies: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that last night's business could and would have been completed by a reasonable hour. In that case, surely six hours is enough time to complete the business today, so why does he not sit down and allow the House to get on with the business in hand?

Sir George Young: The Government are guillotining two Bills. If the hon. Gentleman accepts our undertaking, why is there any need for a guillotine?
The reason for the guillotine dates back to earlier this week, so the Government must have been planning it for some time. Yet, when we had a debate on the summer recess arrangements yesterday morning, there was no mention of the guillotine for the remaining business. The first that I knew about the guillotine was at about seven minutes to 10 last night, which was at about the same time as everybody else. We expect the normal courtesies to be extended if the House is to manage its affairs sensibly. That is simply no way for the Government to treat not only this Opposition party, but the Liberal Democrats, and it is no way to treat the House of Commons. It is not the right arrangement for the measures that we want to discuss.

Mrs. Beckett: I simply remind the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the point that he has just made, that, when I was shadow Leader of the House, I had experience of being in my office and seeing the Leader of the House on the screen telling the House about a guillotine motion, so I had no notice at all.

Sir George Young: The right hon. Lady made it clear that the reason for the guillotine motion was related not to what happened yesterday but to what happened earlier in the week. Against that background, she could have observed the courtesies of letting us know through the usual channels earlier than seven minutes to 10. Her hon. Friends had to call a Division to allow the Government more time to get their act together.
I say to the right hon. Lady that we have helped the Government when they have made a reasonable case. About a fortnight ago, I added my name to a programme motion, so it is nonsense to assert that we do not act reasonably. In the case of the Food Standards Bill, we gave undertakings that the Government accepted.
The guillotine is therefore unnecessary and vindictive. I believe that it an attempt to unite the Labour party after its well-advertised splits and tensions, and it does so at the expense of the freedoms of the House. For those reasons, we shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I do not intend to follow precisely all the points made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) because I do not think that repetition will help and it will certainly take time from the debate when our purpose this afternoon is obviously to get on with that debate.
I remind the Leader of the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked at business questions specifically about the terms on which guillotine motions are brought before the House. I hope that, if she has time during the summer months, she will reflect carefully not only on those terms but on the consultation that takes place in advance.
Liberal Democrat Members' general approach is that a guillotine motion, which is a sledgehammer, should be used only as a very last resort. The way in which we use them at the moment does no credit to Parliament, individual parties or their individual members. It guarantees less effective scrutiny and less effective legislation, and both Parliament and the public lose out as a result. Moreover, the aggressive antics that inevitably follow such actions are not to the benefit of the reputation of the House or the work that we do.
The Leader of the House made much of what happened earlier this week in justifying the motion. I propose to spend a moment or two on that subject. Surely the aggressive antics that we have witnessed do not justify the particular motion in front of us today. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has said, the origins of the motion lie in the events on Monday night.
I was here throughout those proceedings, and I took part in the debate on the business motion. It became clear in that debate—I hope that, when the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food replies to the debate, he will recognise and respond to this point—that, unless the Minister concerned knows the reason for a business motion, the House will be in a complete state of disarray. It was clear that the Minister for Transport did not know the answers to the questions that were being asked about the business motion. For example, she did not know whether, as a result of the Select Committee inquiry, there would be a second Second Reading. She did not know what would happen at prorogation. She did not know whether Standing Committee proceedings would follow.
The failure of those on the Treasury Bench to give adequate answers to important questions that were asked by hon. Members on all sides of the House resulted in a mess. Frankly, the events of Monday night were absurd, but the Government must take responsibility for failing to explain what would happen.
The Leader of the House has made much this afternoon about the progress of business through the House. All that happened on Monday night was that some of the usual hooligans—the term "vigilantes" is too much of a

compliment—sought to disturb the business of the House. In the previous Parliament, the hooligans were members of the right hon. Lady's party; such people are a fact of parliamentary life. However, on Monday night, the hooligans had some justification for their actions, in that, at the end of the debate, there was no conclusion. The Whips moved a closure motion, but no answers had been given to the questions that had been asked. There had been a failure in communication.
I hope that, this afternoon, closure will not again be moved before the Minister has responded to the proper issues raised by those of us who want to improve the way in which the House deals with business.
I can only concur with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire about the panic business statement last night. We witnessed the charade of Labour Back Benchers forcing an entirely absurd Division so that the Leader of the House could arrive with an adequate statement. There was a complete lack of consultation. The right hon. Gentleman and I stood by the Dispatch Box just before the business statement was made and were told what it might contain. We had no opportunity to conduct proper consultation or find out whether we could agree on a process that would help the House to deal effectively with its business.
In an intervention, the Leader of the House implied that she was simply following the bad example of her Conservative predecessors. For goodness' sake—if we develop on that basis, the modernisation of the House will go into reverse. Taking a bad example from the past and adopting it as the process for the future—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip for giving way, and I am very excited to hear his opinion that he and the Conservative Front Bench spokesman should consult on these matters, but the House is the representative institution for much more than Front Benchers. It must also enable Back Benchers to express their views. Back Benchers, I regret to observe across 20 years, are not always ad idem with the views of their party's Front Benchers, and that will apply to the Government as well as to the Opposition. If it is just a cosy-up between three Front Benches, where is the interest of constituents throughout this country protected, and where is the opportunity for Back Benchers to pursue an interest that may seem minor in the great scheme of things but is of great importance to their area or constituency?

Mr. Tyler: I welcome that intervention because I entirely agree with it. The way in which on-the-hoof decisions are sometimes taken, even when the bipartisan usual channels are in operation, does not help the House to do its business in a way that is to the service of all our constituents. That is why short notice is, by its very nature, the antithesis of good consultation.
I happened to be sitting in my office watching the debate, and at 9.55 pm I happened to see the text come up at the bottom of the screen, saying that there would be a business statement at Ten o'clock. I had no foreknowledge. For the Leader of the House to tell us that, on a previous occasion, she sat in her office and was told nothing, is merely to suggest that no lessons have been learned from the mistakes of the past. Two wrongs do not make a right; surely we should know that. I hope that there will be no repeat of that


It is extremely important to bring one piece of information before the House. I understand that the Conservative party was offered a programme motion—no one has yet denied that. However, I do not know the terms of that motion, or whether the Conservatives turned it down flat and were not even interested in talking about it. If so, I think that we should know. I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, was never even offered the opportunity to comment on a programme motion. We would have been very sympathetic to it.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I are both members of the Modernisation Committee, so he knows that I welcome sensible discussion in advance of business. I should like there to be a business committee to take over that responsibility, so that we do not have to rely on the usual channels. By definition, in a House that is now multi-party, a two-way conversation, with one person saying yes and another person saying no, is also the antithesis of good consultation of the whole House, and we must get away from it.
That may be necessary in exceptional circumstances—

Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No; I want to make progress, because I want to get on to the debate.

Mr. Maclean: On that point.

Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman may make his point in due course. I am sure that it is vital, but, even so, I want to make progress.
In my book, there is a very important difference, not of degree but of substance, between a programme motion, which is agreed to, and an imposed guillotine, which by definition is disagreed to. I hope that we shall find ways to develop the former, so that the opinions of those in all parts of the House have a better opportunity of feeding into the way in which we conduct business.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has mentioned the two Bills that are the subject of the timetable motion. Throughout yesterday evening, I carefully watched the way in which the Employment Relations Bill was debated. For once, the ingenuity of the Opposition was comparatively brief. The ingenuity of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was, uncharacteristically, extremely long winded. Any complaint about progress on the Bill should therefore have been directed by the Leader of the House at her colleagues, not at the Opposition. My hon. Friends were extremely brief.
As far as I can judge, the Government amendments were comparatively straightforward. They were also comparatively welcome to the Opposition and, to a considerable extent, they tidied up some inconsistencies that had been left by the Committee.
The House had not had an opportunity to judge whether there would be major problems on the Food Standards Bill. It had not been put to the test. All the signs were that there would not be major problems unless some of the Conservative Back-Bench hooligans had subtly thought up some new problems and wanted to cause trouble, in which case I am sure that we could have relied

on the good offices of the shadow Leader of the House to keep them firmly under control. He is a firm disciplinarian, as we shall discover in a few minutes.
This is a test of the Conservatives' sincerity. If several Conservative Members pop up in a minute, and go on in a way that one or two of them can, we shall know that there is some hypocrisy among those on the Conservative Benches, because the important issue is surely to make progress on the Bill.

Mr. David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No; I am making progress.
I believe that last night's events very seriously—I hope not permanently—undermined cross-party co-operation on progress on business. We have made some real progress in this Parliament. The Government have been forthcoming with the programme motions following the advice of the Modernisation Committee. However, there must be real progress hereafter, and I hope that we shall find that last night's events were an aberration, not the pattern of what is to come.
The Food Standards Bill covers important matters, and I do not propose to speak for much longer. The Food Standards Agency is supported by Members in all parts of the House and by the wider public. There will be important issues to discuss, but I am confident that the Government will be forthcoming in meeting some of the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as of the Conservative Opposition, not least in relation to smaller enterprises.
I hope that we shall avoid a full three-hour harangue. That is where the discipline of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will come into play. Yes, in the past, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has provided the hooligan element. Yes, in the present, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does much the same thing. However, this afternoon is a test of the ability of the House of Commons to deal with an issue on which we basically have no fundamental political differences, and I very much hope that we can now get on with it.

Fiona Mactaggart: I shall be brief. I want to share with the House the confusion that I felt, as a new Member, about the attitude of the Chamber to time. A historical convention seems to have developed whereby time is the only weapon available to the Opposition and to Back-Bench Members. That is a foolish weapon. The time has come for us to give Back-Bench and Opposition Members other opportunities to influence the progress of legislation.
It seems to me peculiar that, when issues are raised by those who are not members of the Government, usually the only vote that we may have is on whether the House shuts down its business completely. That does not sufficiently respect the interests of our electors or of those on the Government Back Benches, which might sometimes differ from the interests of those on the Front Bench. In a Chamber where the only weapon of anyone who has any criticism is time, Ministers naturally desire to keep their Back Benchers silent.
It is time that we grew up and that we admitted that we all have an interest in representing the interests of our constituents and advancing the programmes on which we were elected. It is time to consider mechanisms that can better achieve those aims.
Interestingly, we used such mechanisms to some extent in the case of one of the Bills that is subject to the allocation of time motion—the Food Standards Bill. The Bill was introduced relatively late, but it received pre-legislative scrutiny, which fundamentally changed it on an issue on which the Opposition led the charge, but about which many Labour Back Benchers shared their concerns: the poll tax to fund the Food Standards Agency. Because that was done intelligently, we won on that issue without there being a great row.
The problem with the fact that the only weapon that is available to us in this place is time is that it encourages tribalism. It says, "This side are the good guys and that side are the bad guys," or vice versa. That may very well—

Mr. Shepherd: I appreciate that the hon. Lady is concentrating on time. Does she agree that time can be used to enable intelligent Members of Parliament, also trying to represent their constituents, to employ the device of intelligent, rational argument by which, if there is a problem, one unpicks a contention within a Bill? This guillotine motion, or any guillotine motion, is designed to curtail that opportunity. The hon. Lady's rationale does not address what is central to the purpose of the House of Commons—not this foo-fa of good will and good intent, but the detail of analytical and rational argument, dealing with the content of a Bill.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an important point. By regarding time in the Chamber as the only valuable time, we do not get rational debate. We sometimes endure midnight chunterings, which are not examples of thoughtful and rational debate. Would we not be better off if we genuinely provided time to enable analytical, thoughtful debate to take place, to which I know the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is committed? Such debate could make a difference and not simply provide the opportunity to bore and tire those on the other side of the Chamber into submission. We could actually change things. I think that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I are united in believing that that is our job in this place. We could do our job better if we had a more modern and grown-up attitude to time.
We should programme every Bill and we should know when the House will be in recess well in advance. I come from a tradition that knows that the pressure of the deadline often produces better work. However, we should focus on opportunities to debate that can produce thoughtful, intelligent and better responses, rather than indulging in ritual tribal warfare that degrades the Chamber.

Mr. James Paice: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that time-wasting last night stemmed very much from Labour

Members. At 9.58 pm they called a wholly unnecessary Division. They had to produce two Labour Back Benchers as stooges to be the Tellers because there was a zero Opposition vote. That Division occupied 12 minutes, which perhaps enabled the Leader of the House to get her act together. I cannot help but wonder how much more of the meat of the debate could have been dealt with in that 12 minutes.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, but before I do, I suggest that over the coming weekend or during the summer recess, he has a chat with his father, who was a past master at prolonging debate unnecessarily.

Mr. Hoyle: I do not have the opportunity to get a word in with my father.
To say that no Opposition Members voted in the Division to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not quite correct. I think that he will find that two of his hon. Friends went through the Opposition Lobby. They realised that they had made a mistake and went back through the other side of the Lobby to cancel their votes. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Paice: Hansard records in column 1291 that there were no "Noes". There were just two Tellers. If Members had gone through the Lobby and had been head counted, they would have been recorded as having voted. It is as simple as that.
I wish to underline what a shambles the Government have made of taking the Food Standards Bill through its parliamentary stages. As the Leader of the House has said, it is one of the Government's flagship Bills. The Labour party heralded it in its manifesto and it has not been opposed by any Opposition party.
Let us reflect on what has happened in the Government's handling of a flagship policy. The White Paper, on which the Bill was to be based, was published in early 1998. It was very welcome. It then went out to consultation. We were promised the draft Bill in the summer of 1998, after consultation had taken place. We did not get it until February 1999. The Government, properly, suggested that it should receive pre-legislative scrutiny. That was a sensible approach to the consideration of such a Bill and I have no criticism of that. However, the Government sought to complete that scrutiny in only seven weeks.
It is worth referring to what the Special Select Committee that scrutinised the Bill said. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who chaired the Committee, is no longer in his place. It should be borne in mind that that Committee was massively dominated by Labour Members. It stated:
This period of just over seven weeks is by any standards a very short one for an inquiry by a Parliamentary committee.
Paragraph 8 reads:
Given the way in which a select committee undertakes an inquiry, by requesting written evidence, taking oral evidence, and finally producing a report, it is clear that seven weeks is a far from ideal amount of time. We are concerned that this first exercise in ad hoc committee pre-legislative scrutiny should have taken place under difficult time constraints".


It was flagged up clearly at that stage that even Labour Members felt that the Government were not providing enough time for the Bill.
There were the usual discussions through the usual channels immediately after Second Reading. I do not think that I am giving away any secrets when I say that the Labour usual channels wanted the Bill to be considered in Standing Committee in only one week, on the basis that there had been pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Select Committee that considered the Bill did so carefully and its report is an ideal example of what can be achieved. It produced recommendations relating to the principal issues arising from the Bill. It did not go through it line by line in the technical way that a Standing Committee does, but made a number of proposals. In one instance, thankfully, the Government accepted that Committee's advice and backed down on charging. If we have time this afternoon, we shall debate the Meat Hygiene Service, which is a clear example of the Government taking no notice of the Standing Committee's advice, or not responding to it properly.
It has been widely accepted that in Committee we addressed the issues constructively. Where we felt that specific issues had been debated thoroughly, we withdrew or did not even move amendments later in the proceedings, so that we might move on without rehashing old arguments.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: To complete the picture, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that only eight of the original 42 clauses remained unamended and survived the draft of the Bill that we considered in Committee. The vast bulk of the draft Bill had been amended.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considered these matters carefully. She makes the point that the Standing Committee had to scrutinise the Bill that was before it, which was not the same as the draft Bill originally presented. Some of the changes were welcome because they were responses to the recommendations of the Select Committee. That did not mean that the Standing Committee did not have a responsibility to examine the Bill.
On specific issues, we wanted more scrutiny. We said that we would raise those matters on Report. Last night, the Leader of the House accused me of not being present at business questions and suggested that I should have asked for more time to consider the Bill during previous business questions. However, there was no need to do that; we thought that we would have a full day on Report, with perhaps an extra hour or two hours. The right hon. Lady has implied that that would be perfectly acceptable. Six, seven or eight hours would have been adequate for what we were planning to do in raising certain issues.
If we had known that the Bill would be guillotined, we would have explored some of the key sections of the Bill rather more deeply in Committee. As it is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, we delivered the Bill as we said we would. At the end of three weeks in Committee, we had not run over time. Indeed, we finished with about an hour to spare. No one can suggest that three weeks in Committee—only 11 sittings—is a sign of time-wasting.
The amendments and new clauses selected for consideration today are set out on one side of one sheet of paper. They are fairly well spaced out. There are not

huge groups of amendments, as we sometimes see in other selection lists. Often, we find huge groups of Government amendments. Only 35 amendments were tabled and they were not all selected for debate. Three new clauses were tabled, one of which was not selected, and the Government tabled a new schedule. There are 13 groups on the selection list, one having been tabled by Plaid Cymru. As Plaid Cymru was not represented in the Committee, it should have the right to bring its amendments to the Floor of the House. One amendment was tabled by a Labour Back Bencher, supported by a couple of Liberal Back Benchers. That can hardly be laid at the door of the Opposition. Two groups of amendments are Government concessions, which we welcome, and one group consists of miscellaneous and drafting amendments.
No objective person would classify the amendments and new clauses tabled for this afternoon as time-wasting. Why should we waste time? We are not against the Bill. We support the principle. It now seems unlikely that we will reach all the major issues dealt with in the groups of amendments, in particular the Meat Hygiene Service, which we discussed to a degree—

Mrs. Beckett: I shall take only a second. The hon. Gentleman says that hon. Members wanted a day to debate the Bill and that that would have been adequate. A normal parliamentary day is six hours, and six hours is what the motion allows. He is not debating the Bill, but that is his choice.

Mr. Paice: If the right hon. Lady had listened, she would know that I said about a day, or six, seven or eight hours, which for many years has been a more typical day. Six hours is the minimum—

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Leader of the House is trying to suggest to the House, as did the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in his sanctimonious speech, that somehow it is improper to take time debating one of the most vicious and ruthless guillotines that I have experienced in 16 years in the House. Owing to the way in which the guillotine motion has been drafted by the Government, of course time spent on it will take time out of the debate, but God help this House if the Government say that we cannot discuss guillotines in future because that is inappropriate and takes time out of important debates.

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am certain that, if challenged, the right hon. Lady could not name a guillotine motion in the 18 years of the previous Government on which the Opposition did not speak, or which they allowed to go through on the nod, as she implied by her comments today.
I limit my remarks to the Food Standards Bill. The legislation has been welcomed across the political spectrum, by outside bodies ranging from the National Farmers Union to the National Consumer Council—the entire spectrum of the food industry. They would be horrified by the arrogance of the Government in trying to rush through a Bill that must be right if the agency is to have the credibility that everyone wants it to have.
The Minister of State said that the agency will be the most powerful quango in the land—it may well be. Surely that justifies our demand that the Bill should be properly


examined. If the Government do not want it to be scrutinised, that is an indictment of their approach to the House and to legislation.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Paice: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall conclude in a moment. I am sure that he will have a chance to speak later.
When I entered the House, it was the convention that Bills were not timetabled—guillotined—until they had had 100 hours in Committee. That is not so long ago, and certainly well after both the Leader of the House and the Minister of State entered the House; they both preceded me by some years. Now it seems that the Government are riding roughshod over democracy in order to get their way.
Last night the right hon. Lady said that the Government needed certainty. That is the language of dictatorship, not of democracy. In any event, she has that certainty. It is represented by the hundreds of grinning eunuchs on the Benches behind her, who are not prepared to undertake proper scrutiny of the Bill, which it rightly deserves and which consumers throughout the country expect it to have.

Mr. Geraint Davies: What a charade this is. We have already taken almost an hour on the allocation of time motion, and we have only six hours to debate that and substantive issues. It is clearly a case of arrogant self-indulgence from a few egos on the opposition Benches. Such enormous time-wasting is essentially anti-democratic. We know that we have only six hours. The posturing and pomposity of Opposition Members will make no difference to that. I am sick of listening to synthetic emotion from hon. Members who are incapable of making speeches less than 10 minutes long.
We need proper timetabling in this place, similar to the sittings motion before consideration of the Finance Bill, so that people will not jump up on their hind legs and speak for 20 minutes or half an hour about nothing. That is a waste of the time available to us and an example of end-of-term public school spirit on the part of the Opposition.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) let the cat out of the bag when he said last night—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: Hold on. I will give way in a moment. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said that the business last night was in good order and could have been completed by a reasonable hour. It follows logically from that that we could easily complete the business today within six hours. That is ample time, which is why so much time is being wasted by Opposition Members, and here is another one of them.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am exceptionally grateful to the gracious Member for giving way. I hope that he

will apologise to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for his attack on public school people, given that she is a product of Cheltenham Ladies college.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the period of Labour opposition—18 long years, throughout which I was in the House—every guillotine motion was debated in full? Were his right hon. and hon. Friends guilty of synthetic fury?

Mr. Davies: I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) contained her remarks within less than five minutes. I hope to do the same.
As regards guillotines, the point backfires. The number of guillotines imposed by the previous Government was enormous. That shows the contradictory position of the Opposition now, when they jump up and down. Why do we not get on with the business in hand and discuss the Bills on the Order Paper?

Mrs. Angela Browning: It was the Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill that I addressed at about 6.50 pm yesterday. That business has been lost, although we could have completed it last night. [Interruption.]
I am asked why I am speaking from the Back Bench. I am doing so in order to contribute and to put on the record of the House the reason why an important Bill—a Government Bill—was thwarted by the Leader of the House at 10 pm last night.
As a member of the Conservative Front-Bench team, I co-operated with the Labour Whips to an extent that is probably unprecedented. Before I took my place last night, I had already indicated to the Whips that I would be quite happy for the first two groups of Lords amendments to be nodded through. I had indicated on the amendment paper the areas of debate on which I wanted to concentrate, and I had given every indication that the work last night could be concluded in good time.
There were, as the House knows, 19 sets of grouped Lords amendments, but only five amendments had been tabled to those amendments. Two had been tabled by my hon. Friends and me, one had been tabled by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and two more had been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and cross-party members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I made it clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we would conclude the business last night. I also made clear the aspects that warranted discussion. There were two aspects in particular. One was the amendments tabled by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which took only three quarters of an hour to debate and were not pressed to a Division, despite the fact that the relevant Lords amendments were tabled very late in the progress of the Bill and had not been subject to debate or scrutiny in Committee either in this House or in another place.
Those amendments had important security implications for the country. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) uses dismissive language about the tenor of the debate. Had she been in her place


last night, she would know only too well that in our discussion of the Employment Relations Bill last night, we concentrated on matters of national security and on the other matter, relating to clause 15, on which ministerial commitments made in another place about amendments on Report had not been forthcoming.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Lady misunderstood me. I made no dismissive remarks about last night's debate. Indeed, I was extremely interested in the proposals from the Intelligence and Security Committee. Had I been able to be present, I would have been in the Chamber for that debate.
My concern is that the House seems to have developed a habit recently of having, very late at night—[Interruption.] My constituents think that after 10 o'clock at night is a funny time to do one's work. The House has developed a habit of engaging very late at night in debates that are ridiculous rituals. If we held our debates earlier in the day, they might be less so.

Mrs. Browning: Of the 19 groups of amendments scheduled for debate last night, we completed six, the first two of which I agreed to nod through. But the two which took up the substantive amount of time were the two that I mentioned—one relating to national security matters raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which should have had proper scrutiny, and the other to clause 15, on which the House divided because commitments made by Ministers in the other place had not been honoured. It was when we then moved on at approximately 9 o'clock that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decided to share with us, amusing as it was for those of us who were present, anecdotes about Spitfire pilots and scenes from "Hancock's Half Hour". From 9 o'clock onwards, it was clear that the Government Front-Bench spokesmen were under instruction to filibuster.

Mr. Clive Betts (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Rubbish.

Mrs. Browning: I did everything that I could to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. At one stage, I referred one of his colleagues to other channels. I am not other channels, but, being in charge of the legislation, I was convinced that we could conclude it satisfactorily. Without the intervention of the Leader of the House at 9.50 pm, we would probably have concluded the Bill, including one more vote, by 10.30 pm. For that business to be lost to the House last night and deferred until next Monday was unnecessary.

Mr. Tyler: If it was not an intentional filibuster, it was certainly an effective unintentional filibuster. If the Government were not under instruction, they seemed to be doing it anyway, which seems an extraordinary situation. The credibility of what the Government have said has surely been blown to smithereens by their subsequent action of calling an absurd Division.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman says that it was a filibuster; it certainly developed in that way. However, those of us who set out in good faith on the next group of amendments had no idea that it was to be turned into a filibuster by no less a person than the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
How shall we be able to accept the Government's word during future legislation? Knowing how to allocate one's time effectively in order to give due consideration to those issues that require it is becoming a pretty precarious business.
Dealing with amendment No. 17 last night I said:
I will be happy to allow speedy progress on some amendments on the Order Paper, but not amendment No. 17. What has happened as a result of the amendment bears full examination."—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1262.]
Throughout the evening I gave every indication of where I needed to spend time on matters of substance while reinforcing the message that, where we could make rapid progress, we would.
There still seems to be something of a mystery about the Government's agenda last night in curtailing progress on the Bill. Having voted to overturn a Lords amendment, it is clear that, even when we dispatch the Bill on Monday, it will have to go back to the other place.
Matters of great importance arise here, such as the timing of the application of the legislation for industry and employment. Given that the Government's excuse seems to be that they were all tired after Monday, the only conclusion to which I can come is that they were not only tired but pretty emotional as well.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Under the new Labour Government, guillotine motions are becoming increasingly ritualistic. The Leader of the House and I have voted long and often against the principle and employment of guillotine motions as an instrument of Executive abuse of process. The House, as a collective body of elected representatives, can only attest, or assent—if it is a higher order of attestation—to the proposals brought before us for consideration.
I felt for the Leader of the House because, towards the end of any Session, with the pressure of the necessity of returning to our constituencies and giving our constituents undivided attention for 14 weeks, the Government naturally want to ensure that they have secured all aspects of their business.
The Leader of the House tried to negotiate that concept, and adduced arguments which were essentially arguments of divination. I say divination, because as one reads the arguments that the right hon. Lady adduced last night, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) cited, they have a curious ring. The right hon. Lady said:
We have had a substantial amount of time wasted—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—yes, wasted, although I accept not necessarily by the official Opposition as such. Time has been taken up in the House."—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1292.]
In the exchange that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was kind enough to allow me to pursue with her, I thought that we accepted that Members of Parliament have the right to try to express arguments on details, which are often outside the consultations. Therefore, any hon. Member can anxiously wait for an opportunity to rise on a clause which might be dismissed by a guillotine motion.
A generation ago and before, guillotine motions were looked upon as something shocking because they are the denial of freedom of speech. They may have something to do with the enormous legislative programmes that modern


Governments seek to carry through. To list such programmes is almost the parliamentary equivalent of soundbites. From my own memory, I can recall a previous distinguished Prime Minister—to put it that way—who was elected on the basis that we have far too much legislation, coming to the Conservative 1922 Committee and cheering us, with a ringing affirmation, for passing 44 pieces of legislation during our first period of government. "Jolly good," the Prime Minister called out, then added, ominously, "but we can do better."
The claim to reduce the burden of legislation going through the House was in the Conservative party's election manifesto. But within one brief parliamentary Session that was out of the window and we were into the business of proclaiming how many pieces of legislation we had scuttled through the House.
Nearly 20 years later, a new Government have come in, and what is one of their most ringing cheers? Of course, they have to clear up the detritus, the misgovernment of Britain for 2,000 years, the misappropriation and all the rest. I seem to recall that one of the current Prime Minister's ringing and cheering assertions to the nation is of 52 pieces of legislation.
Perhaps the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me for just reflecting on what is the point of a Queen's Speech. It cites 16 or 18 pieces of legislation, but no longer reflects what we shall all be condemned to doing in the House during the next 12 months. I make those observations because they affect why the House sometimes becomes tense over the progress of Bills through the Chamber. That is really what this is about.
Why did I say that the Leader of the House was into divination? Although the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) made a very sour speech, if I may be allowed to say so, it is probably agreed by Members on both sides of the House that, on reflection, genuine questions were not answered. For example, although I try to follow such matters, I have no certainty about how one moves amendments in a Select Committee. So we come to the guillotine motion; in a sense, it is addressing the failure to satisfy the House on Monday. [Interruption.] I see that the usual channel has absented himself from the corner of the Chamber which he occupies.
The motion contains one of the features that we have taken up a number of times. It would not be true to say that those on the Treasury Bench invented the device of including the three hours, as set down in the Standing Orders, for discussions on guillotine motions within the overall time allocated for consideration of a Bill. I regret that that happened on one occasion that I can identify before 1997. However, the toy that has been given to the Government means that that is becoming a standard feature of guillotine motions. That is why I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I do not want to detract from the fact that he made a very good speech but hon. Members should note that, having almost completed it, he turned round and said, "But I hope no one else will cause any obstruction by making a speech, because we want to be able to discuss the merits of the Bill."

Mr. Maclean: Sanctimony.

Mr. Shepherd: I shall not go as far as saying that that remark was a little sanctimonious. The hon. Member for

North Cornwall was saying, "I am quite prepared to be coerced by guillotine motions of this nature." To pursue his argument, we must ensure that the Government are ashamed of encompassing substantive argument on a Bill within the time allowed for a guillotine motion.

Mr. Tyler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know that during my previous sojourn in this place in 1974, throughout the period of the Conservative Government and during this Parliament I have always voted against guillotine motions on principle.

Mr. Shepherd: I am very cheered by that enunciation and I hope that it becomes part of the Liberal party's programme. I would say that, wouldn't I? However, I recall that the hon. Gentleman came close to falling into the hands of Lucifer over the absurd provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which the House considered last September. Not only was he not going to vote against the guillotine motion, but he actually signed it. Fortunately, the good and intelligent argument of his own colleagues and other Members of the House convinced him that it was inappropriate for him to sign that motion. In one of the most touching moments that I have ever witnessed in the House, a signatory to a motion on the Order Paper—presumably, signing the motion reflected a considered position—withdrew his support by standing up and saying, "I withdraw my signature." I do not condemn that, because we sometimes change our opinions. After all that the hon. Member for Slough has said on that point of rational argument, I accept it; I sometimes have my mind changed.
The point that I want to make is about a three-hour guillotine motion encompassing argument on the substantive legislative issues before the House and I hope that the Government—and the usual channel, who unfortunately is not in his usual place—will take it on board. In truth, using that little device does no Government any credit. Either the Government want to give us three hours' debate on these matters or they want to give us six. Surely they do not want to coerce us into surrendering a proper debate about whether the allocation of time is adequate. That is what we are discussing.
The divination to which I referred is in the words of the Leader of the House, who said:
The course of events over this week led the Government to have some anxiety about the progress of the Food Standards Bill.
This matter has nothing to do with the Food Standards Bill itself and, by a process of divination, the right hon. Lady knows that the character of certain Members makes it unsuitable for them to be permitted to address it. Why do I say unsuitable? Because she said that time had been wasted
not necessarily by the official Opposition as such.
How gracious; now we are allowed—as an official Opposition, no less—to be commended for the way in which we discharge our business, although the hon. Member for Croydon, Central does not believe that there is merit in that position.
The Leader of the House continued:
It is no good hon. Members asking questions if they do not want to listen to the answer.
She was saying, "We'll guillotine it if necessary." She went on:


The Opposition have every right to use time in the House"—
That was very big of her—
that is their legitimate right".
She then talked about
the duty of the Government".—[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1292.]
I know that after 10 o'clock we are all driven to make some absurd comments, but the particularisation and characterisation, which I think are wrong, is that any Member, however humble or however recently elected, can be guillotined out of the way.
Acceptance of the Food Standards Bill is what is behind the motion. I have no way of testing this until the debate has finished, but when the guillotine falls we may have three hours, less up to 20 minutes for a Division, to debate the Bill. That means that the Government consider only two hours and 40 minutes to be appropriate for such a debate. I do not believe that a Bill that has received almost universal support and attracted the good will of Members on both sides of the House should be treated so casually. However, the Government are not treating the Bill casually; they are treating casually the right of those who send us here to represent them to have their say.
Perhaps the 52, 54, 56 or 57 pieces of legislation that the Government hope to pass next year should be viewed by their business managers with a much more jaundiced eye. Good government in this country means, by and large, a sense of fairness and recognition that other people sometimes have different views. The motion should be opposed, because it strikes at freedom of speech and exerts the absolute control of the Executive over the Chamber.

Mr. David Maclean: The motion before the House is intolerant and it has been tabled by a Government who are becoming increasingly intolerant. I exempt from that accusation the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Public Health because of their behaviour and demeanour in Committee when we were discussing the Food Standards Bill. They behaved with exemplary courtesy and were grateful for some of the contributions from the Opposition; I think they said that some of those contributions helped. I feel that I know the Minister of State slightly better than I know the Minister for Public Health, and I cannot imagine that he is behind the tabling of the motion.
The Minister of State was probably as appalled as the rest of us last night when he discovered what was going to happen today. The motion is certainly not his style, considering the way in which he handled proceedings in Committee. I would be the first to acknowledge that his patience would soon run out if there was one second of time-wasting today and we did not make proper progress on the Bill. He would be calling on the business managers to use a guillotine motion to get the Bill through the House.
However, that is not the scenario. The Employment Relations Bill and the Food Standards Bill are being guillotined not because there was one second's time wasting by the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats or anyone else, but because the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the business managers concluded that the

climate during the conduct of other business in the week indicated—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, the Leader of the House concluded through divination—that the Food Standards Bill might be delayed, or filibustered. That is an extraordinary way in which to run business in the House.

Mr. Drew: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously asking Labour Members to accept that he would not have been filibustering last night in advance of his filibuster on Friday on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill?

Mr. Maclean: I can give an absolute assurance that I would not have spoken at all last night. I did not have a particular interest in the Bill. One cannot be a specialist—one cannot be an amateur—on every Bill before the House, so I had no intention of speaking last night.
I had intended to speak on the Food Standards Bill today. I assumed that it would kick off at about 2.30 and finish about 7, 7.30 or 8; that would be the normal amount of time. I also assumed that, if we finished at 8 o'clock on Thursday night, that was not too late for the precious luvvies and darlings on the Labour Benches, who seem to wilt and to turn into pumpkins if we go beyond 10 o'clock.
I do not intend to do any filibustering on Friday. In fact, if I did filibuster, Mr. Deputy Speaker would be ruthless in pulling me up. I may have one or two points to make on other Bills, but that is an entirely different matter.
I get back to the point of the guillotine. It has been introduced because, on Monday night, some Divisions were called by some Opposition Back Benchers. Because of those Divisions, proper sensible debate on the Employment Relations Bill and on the Foods Standards Bill will be ruthlessly curtailed.
What happened on Monday night? I agreed with much of the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but take issue with two little points. On Monday night, the Minister for Transport failed to respond to the points in the debate and then, all of a sudden, decided to move the closure. One of my hon. Friends had given way to the Minister or a Government Whip, and suddenly the Minister or the Whip moved that the question be now put, without us hearing a cheep from the Minister in response to any of the crucial questions that had been asked. Those questions were crucial because, in opening the debate, the Minister for Transport had not a clue what would happen.
I assume that the reason was not the briefing because the civil service cannot have gone downhill that much in two years; I assume that the Minister had been given, as usual, excellent briefing. Why she decided not to use it, or not to call for answers from the Box, is beyond me. Because there was no response and because the closure had been moved, I, with other Opposition Back Benchers who were annoyed at the lack of a proper response, forced a Division.
What else can an Opposition do? What else can individual Members do when we make serious points in a debate and then find that there is no response? Of course Divisions were called. If the Government wanted to avoid—

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclean: In a moment. I shall comment on the hon. Lady's speech soon.
If the Government want to avoid what they consider to be unnecessary Divisions, they should have the courtesy to answer questions that are asked of Ministers. The Government can control all the motions and all the business before the House. Ministers' refusal on Monday night to answer some simple questions was directly responsible for five or six Opposition Members forcing Divisions.

Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Gentleman asks what else a Member can do. That seems to be the nub of the problem. We need to establish procedures whereby Members can make their views known and have their questions answered through a sensible, reflective procedure, rather than by dancing round and round in circles at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Maclean: We have those procedures. We asked the Minister for Transport some questions. She had a Parliamentary Private Secretary behind her who could have run to the Box to obtain the answers. As usual, she had her big red folder. I suspect that all the answers were in there to begin with, but she decided not to respond. Whether that was out of arrogance and contempt for the House, or whether she did not like the questions and did not want to respond, we do not know.
We do not need to invent some new fancy procedure. The Minister could have read out the answers in her briefing notes if she had wished to do so. Because of that failure, as everyone knows, some unnecessary Divisions were called. The hon. Member for North Cornwall was right that that was the genesis of some of the Divisions on Monday night but, being a typical Liberal Democrat, he castigated the Government for causing the problem and then castigated some Opposition Members for voting. It was an absurd charade, he said. Fortunately, I have had the benefit of checking Hansard. He and other Liberal Democrats voted in almost every one of those Divisions—certainly between midnight and 1.30 am.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall has re-entered the Chamber. I am refreshing hon. Members' memory, mentioning that he said that some of the votes on Monday night were absurd. I notice that he participated in those votes, but I congratulate him on getting the point correct: those votes happened because of the Government's arrogance in not responding.
As a result of that, we have a guillotine motion. There is no question of delays on the Employment Relations Bill being caused by any Opposition Member. The delays on the Bill were caused by the Secretary of State for Trade

and Industry. He deliberately delayed the Bill after 9 o'clock, when he got the message to keep talking until the Government cooked up a guillotine.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It was not only the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spent a considerable amount of time speaking in yesterday's debate that caused the problem. It was also the fact that, because of the Government's bad drafting of the Employment Relations Bill, a huge number of Government amendments had been tabled. If there had not been so many Government amendments, there would not have been so many groups of amendments to discuss.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. No Labour Member can deny that.
The Leader of the House made a virtue out of making a very short speech on the guillotine motion. She said that she did not want to take time out of the rest of the debate. We know why she made a very short speech: she had nothing the say. There was no justification for the motion. She could not justify it on the basis that the Opposition were delaying the legislation yesterday. The Opposition were not; they were co-operating fully. The only person delaying it was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The Leader of the House could not justify the guillotine motion on the basis of the behaviour of the Opposition, the Government or anyone else on the Committee that considered the Foods Standards Bill. I have served on quite a few Committees and taken a few Bills through the House; parts of some of them were opposed vigorously by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. I cannot remember a time when a Committee was conducted in such a spirit of sensible co-operation.
We had the odd stormy moment but, in the main, there was complete co-operation. The Opposition—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—tabled amendments. The spirit of some of them was accepted by the Government, who are coming back with improvements. On other occasions, Ministers pointed out why the amendments were helpful but not necessary, saying that, through guidance or codes of practice, the point would be addressed. Ministers know that.
That is why I feel sorry for the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Public Health. Although I am critical of this intolerant Government for their disgraceful motion, it is not those two Ministers who are responsible for it. To use the expression of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in her imitation of the Prime Minister, "They are the good guys." They are not demanding the introduction of what is an unnecessary guillotine.
Why did the Government not see what would happen? Why did we not start on the Food Standards Bill? It would be a bit difficult to filibuster or delay the few sensible amendments that my hon. Friends have tabled. Moreover, if we wanted to wreck or mess about with the Food Standards Bill, as the Government know, some of us are capable of tabling more than 13 amendments.

Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Gentleman made it clear earlier that his strategy when he is frustrated by one thing is to fuss about something completely different.


He made it clear that he did that on Monday night. That is what I described as a failure of the procedures of the House. I imagine that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House thought that he might choose this occasion to do it again.

Mr. Maclean: What a preposterous idea. I assure the hon. Lady that, had we intended to disrupt the Food Standards Bill, there would be 50 amendments in my name on all aspects of it. I have tabled no amendments to the Bill because I was largely satisfied by most of the Minister's comments in Committee. I am also satisfied with the few—it is a few in parliamentary terms—sensible amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friends, which are adequate for debate. It is preposterous of the hon. Lady and outrageous of the Leader of the House to suggest that a Bill that we have not even started to discuss on the Floor of the House should be guillotined, especially given that there was utterly sensible co-operation from the Opposition in Committee.

Mr. Barron: Ten minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that all that he wanted to do this afternoon was discuss the Food Standards Bill, the Standing Committee considering which we both sat on, until 7.30 or 8 o'clock tonight. Why, then, does he not sit down so that we can do that?

Mr. Maclean: Because I shall not be blackmailed by the Government, who want to curtail remarks on a guillotine motion by wrapping it up with the substance of the Bill. That is the evil that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills complained about, and that is what other Labour Members have been threatening us with today. They are saying, "Don't talk on the guillotine motion. Stay gagged. Let us drive it through ruthlessly, because every minute you talk on the motion takes time out of discussion of the Bill."
I deplore the fact that time is being taken out of the debate. That is not happening because my hon. Friends and I are talking on the motion; it is happening because the Government have phrased the motion in that way. They could have phrased it to give us two or three hours on the guillotine motion and then presented a separate time limit for discussion of the Bill itself. This is, therefore, a simple blackmail motion, because we know that for every second that we take in protesting about the Government's illiberal behaviour in trying to drive through guillotines, we are taking time out of discussion of the Bill. Although the Bill is extremely important, the freedom of Members of Parliament to have a say on all aspects of legislation is even more important.
Labour Members also suggest that, because this and other Bills have been before a Special Select Committee, we need less time to debate them. They suggest that they can be guillotined and that it does not matter if we have a shorter debate on Report because Special Select Committees of experts have looked at them. That is a jolly good thing for the 17 people fortunate enough to be on the Special Select Committee, excellently chaired by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but what about all the other Members of the House? What about those who were not even more fortunate in being on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill line by line? The only opportunity for those 635 Members to discuss the Bill is on the Floor of the House.
This motion is preventing that discussion from happening, not because I am protesting about the motion, but because the Leader of the House has drafted the motion in such a way that every word of protest against this illiberal, intemperate motion takes time out of the debate. That is why I shall vote against the motion. It is wrong because it seeks to curtail parliamentary democracy when there has not been one second wasted on the Food Standards Bill, or on the Employment Relations Bill last night.

Mr. Hoyle: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that he is taking time away from Back Benchers who want to get on with the debate. He must realise that he is filibustering.

Mr. Maclean: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is stupid or slightly deaf, but he has missed the point that I am making.

Mr. Hoyle: Sorry?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is using the standard blackmail on us. His Government have phrased this motion in such a way that it amounts to parliamentary blackmail.

Mr. Hoyle: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that I am blackmailing him when I simply asked him to get on with the debate and allow Back Benchers who were not on the Select Committee to contribute to it. That is not blackmail. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his disgraceful comments; he should know better.

Mr. Maclean: I have been here slightly longer than the hon. Gentleman, and I profess that, on this matter, I do know slightly better. It is parliamentary blackmail to phrase a motion in such a way that, every minute that one takes in protesting against the illiberal nature of the motion takes time out of the subject that we really want to debate.
This motion is the Government's responsibility. They should have phrased it differently, as such motions used to be phrased on most occasions in the past. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) can laugh his head off, but he is part of the parliamentary blackmail. If he really wants time for debate on this measure, he should vote against the guillotine motion.
The motion is not necessary for the Food Standards Bill and I doubt whether it is necessary for the Bill that we were dealing with last night. I shall oppose it because I shall not be blackmailed by the Government into staying silent on a guillotine motion.
I wish to exempt, once again, the Ministers responsible for the Food Standards Bill, because I do not believe that they are guilty on this occasion. Indeed, I am absolutely certain that they are not. They will have been as appalled about this motion as the rest of us. Whenever the Government table a guillotine motion that is not necessary, I shall oppose it, as I will tonight.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Leader of the House made it abundantly clear that the motion arises out of the events of Monday night. I do not


want to dwell on that, but I shall say this: after last week's business statement, both my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and I drew to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that such problems would arise. We flagged up the fact that Monday's Bill would require a second Second Reading.
When the Minister for Transport was unable to explain the events that would follow on from the motion that she was proposing, Conservative Members naturally, and quite properly, wanted to investigate that fully in the debate that followed. As that debate was then curtailed arbitrarily—and improperly, in my view—it led to the subsequent Divisions that kept hon. Members up until 2 am. As a consequence, we now have the motion before us.
The motion is absurd; it is a punishment motion. The Government are saying, "You did this on Monday night; therefore we shall do this now." It is an absurd way for the Government to run the business of the House.
The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, in support of the motion, that we should have programme motions on all our business and sensibly agree a timetable in which to discuss Bills. We have been through that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) will agree that, when we sat through hour after hour of the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill, all of which had been timetabled through the usual channels, the timetable proved thoroughly inadequate because it was a straitjacket. Indeed, the Bill was effectively guillotined.
The timetable constrained debate of matters that arose quite naturally out of the investigations and probing amendments of Back Benchers. When issues were suddenly discovered that required fuller and more expansive debate, the timetable simply could not accommodate that. Timetables drawn up in advance cannot take account of what may be discovered by proper scrutiny.
I am against guillotines in principle, but I am against this one in practice. As the Leader of the House has made clear, it does not arise from any fear about the passage of the two Bills involved; it arises from the right hon. Lady's desire to be seen to be taking firm action following what happened on Monday night.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I expected that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) would have much more to say. Given that he does not, I certainly do.
I agree with those of my hon. Friends who, like me, were present throughout Monday's proceedings, that we have been traduced by the way in which Ministers have described our behaviour this afternoon. We have heard from other Labour Members that we are hooligans and vigilantes. Various other phrases have been used, but they have not discouraged the Leader of the House from saying that we employed legitimate tactics. We are not surprised that the right hon. Lady considers it all right for Back Benchers to be hooligans and vigilantes, because last night we saw a Minister being a hooligan, delaying the very legislation that is now to be subject to the timetable motion. It is the Government's Front-Bench hooligans who pose the real problem.
That Minister is not the only one, however. This whole difficulty arose from an attempt on Monday to assuage the pride and the prejudice of the Deputy Prime Minister. His pride demanded that there should be a Railways Bill from his Department—a Bill which, as is becoming clearer by the day, simply cannot proceed in the current Session. That is what provoked all that happened on Monday night. A Minister was not prepared to admit to us how the Bill would proceed and would not reply to the points that I was making. I gave way to one of her ministerial colleagues in the belief that we would be enlightened about how the Government would deal with the innovative structure for Bills; instead, we were faced with a closure motion, as a result of which we spent three and a half hours on procedure. We shall spend more than three hours on procedure this afternoon and we shall spend more than three hours on it on Monday. If we take into account the time spent on points of order concerning these issues over the past few days, that amounts to a total of 10 hours of debate on procedural matters.
People outside this place will ask what has resulted from our spending nearly three times as much of our precious remaining time on procedure as will be spent on consideration of the important Bills that we shall discuss this afternoon and on Monday. The solution is simple: the timetable motions should be withdrawn. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) helpfully reminded us today that he had signed a timetable motion a year ago but, having heard the arguments presented in the House, had decided to oppose it. It is entirely within the rules of the House for a Minister to say, "Having received reassurances from Conservative Back Benchers, and having understood why their actions on Monday night were entirely justified, we are prepared to drop the timetable motions for today and Monday, and proceed with a clear, well-intentioned, well-timed but untimetabled debate on these two key Bills."
The Parliamentary Secretary's eyes light up at the prospect. If he is tempted down that road, he will have struck a blow for democracy, for the freedoms of the House and for the mutual respect in which we hold our arguments. I am afraid that that mutual respect was sadly lacking in the Minister's colleagues on Monday night: despite numerous offers, they spurned all attempts to make them explain how they proposed to proceed with the Bill that we were considering.

Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend who is making a powerful point, but did he observe that Labour Members began chuntering a moment ago when he referred to points of order? Does he agree with my recollection—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is listening attentively—that most of those points of order concerned the procedure for the handling of legislation? The need for them could have been readily avoided if the Government, via a statement, had made clear what the criteria were for the future handling of all Bills—if they had made it clear when Bills would and would not be referred to Select Committees, and when it would or would not be necessary for there to be two Second Readings as opposed to one. The Government may


chunter, from a sedentary position, about points of order, but they know that the way to avoid such problems in the future lies in their hands.

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A week ago, during business questions, I heard the Leader of the House being told for the first time that she would have to explain how this week's Bills would be dealt with. I was present throughout business questions and I know that the right hon. Lady had no answer.
On Monday, we observed that hon. Members received no reply when they constantly asked the Government how the Bill could possibly proceed. Points of order have been made to the Chair over a number of days, and no doubt many hours have been spent in the Speaker's Office in an attempt to resolve the enigma of the Railways Bill. I expect that there will be chapters about it in "Erskine May". All that was required, however, was a little thought and a clear statement from Ministers.
The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked why we could not have a mechanism allowing Back Benchers to receive answers from Ministers. We would love to know her ideas but, in fact, we have such a mechanism: the mechanism which we employed on Monday night.
Ministers, their Whips and the usual channels all knew exactly what was happening on Monday night. They knew exactly what would happen if they refused to give any answers; they knew exactly what would happen if the closure was moved and they forced us to use such tactics. There was no mystery about it. It has happened time and again. Labour Members who are now trying to present themselves as innocents employed exactly the same tactics when they were in opposition. The mechanism is there, and it was used. This afternoon, in a reflex reaction, Labour control freaks are trying to punish Back Benchers who used the mechanism which, because she was not present, the hon. Member for Slough did not witness on Monday night.

Fiona Mactaggart: My point is that the mechanism used on Monday night, if understood by hon. Members, was certainly not understood by our constituents. It did not constitute a reasonable, proportionate way of dealing with the problem that may have existed. Would it not be better for us to use our imagination to find a more sensible, transparent way of dealing with the problems, rather than simply saying, "We have always done it that way"?

Mr. St. Aubyn: I heard the speech the first time. The hon. Lady clearly was not here on Monday night—her votes are not recorded—and she may not even have read the report of the debate. The response on Monday night was entirely proportionate to the events that preceded it. We had an "unlimited time" motion, which the Chair described as a free-standing motion outside Standing Orders. If the hon. Lady likes innovation, she should have been here on Monday night because Ministers were

innovating on the hoof. What became increasingly clear was that they either did not know or, much more likely, were not prepared to admit—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is dwelling over-long on the proceedings that took place on Monday night, and is becoming a little repetitive. I ask him to address his remarks to the motion.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am trying to explain that the behaviour of hon. Members on Monday night was entirely reasonable. If hon. Members are behaving reasonably, closure and timetable motions are unnecessary.
The entire history of guillotine motions in this Chamber is based on the unreasonable behaviour of hon. Members in the previous century, when Irish Members used quite unreasonable methods to delay progress on Bills. Historically, the House has always justified passing timetable motions on the basis of dealing with unreasonable behaviour. Today, Opposition Members have demonstrated quite conclusively that, in this instance, there has been no unreasonable behaviour—except for Ministers' totally unreasonable behaviour, on Monday, yesterday and today. That is why all hon. Members who respect the House's rights and privileges must oppose the motion.

4 pm

Mr. Christopher Gill: I do not recall speaking in any previous debate on a guillotine motion. I am speaking in this one because a Bill in which I have an interest has, this week, become the innocent victim of wranglings in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has just described those events, on Monday and again last night.
On Monday, the Government did not lose their business—they obtained a Second Reading of their Railways Bill, which was the House's business on that day. Subsequently, there was a wrangle over procedure, but I should be very surprised if any right. hon. or hon. Member could have any objection at all to the way in which Back Benchers expressed their concern and anger about the Government's proposals on further consideration of that Bill.
As we all recognise, the Government were proposing a slightly unusual way of proceeding on the Railways Bill. Indeed, given that the Bill had already been considered by the Committee to which it has now been referred yet again, to many of us, the Government's proposals seemed to be very strange—thereby giving rise to legitimate questions whether Back Benchers would be able to table amendments in Select Committee as they should have been able to do had the Bill been referred, in the normal way, to a Standing Committee.
I, too, was in the House last night when more of the House's time was wasted. Last night, I clearly heard the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who has intervened also in this debate, calling for a vote on the motion. Last night, it also seemed—at least to Opposition Members—that there was complete confusion among Labour Members. Many of us were perplexed about why some Labour Members were calling for a yes vote, whereas others were calling for a no vote.
Last night, there was such confusion among Labour Members that one of my right hon. Friends said, "Lindsay, what are you doing? You've got it wrong." However,


the hon. Member for Chorley did not hear my right hon. Friend, because he knew perfectly well what he was doing: acting, under instructions from the Labour Whips, to force a Division, absorbing yet more time allocated to debate on the Employment Relations Bill.
It was sheer effrontery for the Leader of the House to tell the House, as she did a few moments ago, that we shall now have a guillotine because, last night, "it was not possible" to make progress on the Employment Relations Bill. That is simply not true. Last night, had there been discipline among Labour Members, we should have had additional time, before 10 o'clock, to debate the Bill.
Moreover, last night, the 10 o'clock motion was not moved. Therefore, it was a matter not of insufficient time to debate the Bill but of the Government denying us the opportunity to do so. Today, the Government are proposing a guillotine motion on not one Bill but two. I do not know whether such a motion is unprecedented but, in my time as an hon. Member, I certainly do not recall ever seeing one before.
Last night, had the 10 o'clock motion been moved and debate been allowed to continue, if the debate had got out of hand and the Government thought that there was a filibuster, it would have been quite open to Ministers to move a closure motion at any time after 10 o'clock to close down the business. Yesterday, if they had allowed the debate to continue after 10 o'clock but had to move closure, today it would have been perfectly legitimate and reasonable for them to ask for a guillotine.
As I said, I am speaking to the motion because the Food Standards Bill, in which I have an interest, has been the casualty of the Government's ineptitude. Ministers know that the row started on Monday because they were not able to answer Back Benchers' questions on the future of the Railways Bill. In the circumstances, the Government—knowing what they wanted to do—without fear or favour should have known what the next step would be and how to answer the questions quite legitimately asked by Opposition Members.
As many of my right. hon. and hon. Friends have said, the Food Standards Bill itself commands widespread support. There has been no attempt to obstruct the Bill, which easily obtained a Second Reading. In the House, as in Committee, the Opposition have co-operated in every way in the Bill's passage.
I hope that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is not leaving the Chamber now as I should like to say one or two words about what she had to say. She clearly is leaving the Chamber, but I hope that she will appreciate that I have tried to observe the normal courtesies of the House by warning her that I shall be mentioning her name.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gill: Yes, but I have much to say.

Mrs. Winterton: I shall be very brief and am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He mentioned courtesies of the House. I wonder whether other hon. Members noted that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies)—whose speech was very sadly

described as "sour" by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is considered to be one of the most courteous Members, with tremendous integrity and a consistent record in speaking for his constituents—clearly is very discourteous and does not understand the courtesies of the House, such as that of remaining in the Chamber until the next speech has been completed. Does my hon. Friend join me in deploring such behaviour and in wishing to see the old-fashioned courtesies continue? Perhaps Ministers could also make that point to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central when, eventually, he returns to the Chamber.

Mr. Gill: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. I was not in the Chamber when that happened, but perhaps the hon. Member for Croydon, Central, who is a relatively new Member—I believe that he was elected at the last general election—left the Chamber unaware of those courtesies of the House. Perhaps he does not understand them.
I should add, having been prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), that today it was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Chorley left the Chamber after making a very direct, but not necessarily very courteous intervention on an Opposition Member. As he is implicated—because of his actions yesterday, which I have described—in the matters that we are now debating, one would have thought that he should remain in the Chamber to hear more of this debate, rather than leaving shortly after making an intervention. I am very glad that he is back in the Chamber now.
As I was saying, the Opposition have in no way tried to obstruct the Food Standards Bill, which commands widespread support. Nevertheless, the Bill raises issues of great importance which I, for one, had hoped to be able to address on Report or Third Reading. However, as I said, the Bill is the unwitting victim of earlier events in the House. There is no evidence that the Bill would have been obstructed on Report or at Third Reading. I would go so far as to say that I had a genuine fear that it would not go the distance, and that there would be insufficient Members in the Chamber to sustain the debate until 7 o'clock this evening.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have been doing a calculation while my hon. Friend has been speaking—although I was listening to every word that he said. Some 35 amendments have been selected by Madam Speaker for debate. If we had the full six hours to go through them, we would be allowed 10 minutes of debate per amendment. Does my hon. Friend agree that 10 minutes per amendment is a gross insult not only to Parliament but to the people whom we serve?

Mr. Gill: I very much regret that the Bill will not have a greater amount of time. My hon. Friend is right to point out how little time is left for each group of amendments. He will recognise that some of the amendments are more important than others and that some will demand more time than others. Nevertheless, he is right to say that the average time allowed is insufficient.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. A few moments ago, he made it quite clear


that he thought that there might be insufficient Members present for the Bill to run its full time. Now he is agreeing with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) that there is not enough time to debate the amendments. He needs to be clear on what he is saying to the House.

Mr. Gill: I am saying that I very much regret the way in which a Bill in which I, as a Back Bencher, have an interest, and in the debate on which I wished to participate this evening, is being dealt with. I am debating this issue because of something outwith my control. If the Government had got a grip on their business and had been able to answer the questions that arose on Monday, we would not find ourselves in our present bind, which has been compounded by what happened last night.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am trying to work out whether the hon. Gentleman approves or disapproves of the suggestion by the Modernisation Committee that there are three ways of dealing with a Bill, any one of which can be open to the House. That is relevant to the discussion. We do not want to go back over Monday's discussion, but the House was following the procedures set down by the Modernisation Committee, and voted. Some of us might not think it particularly sensible, and some might be totally opposed to guillotines—whichever Government move them—and even more opposed to the moving of double guillotines. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know which of these approaches the hon. Gentleman supports.

Mr. Gill: Like the hon. Lady, I am not a great lover of guillotines although I understand that, from time to time, Governments will seek to impose them. I believe that that should be done sparingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said powerfully that we are talking about the denial of opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute to debates.
I am concerned that, because the Railways Bill has been referred to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, the opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute are severely restricted. How do Back Benchers make their views on the Bill known to the Committee? Are Back Benchers allowed to table amendments? Is the Committee allowed to consider them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again going over the Railways Bill and the debate on Monday evening. I would be grateful if he came back to the motion.

Mr. Gill: I will follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will appreciate that I was responding to an intervention by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Before my hon. Friend took the intervention from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), he said that the Government had lost control of their business on Monday. What I find so bizarre is that the Government did not lose control of their business on Monday—they got their business on Monday and have continued to do so this week. Yet, in her extraordinary statement at 10 o'clock

last night, the Leader of the House said that we would have this guillotine motion due to the lack of progress on Government business.

Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I did not say that the Government had lost their business—I made the point that the Government did get their business on Monday. I have explained to the House that it was spurious of the Leader of the House to say that a guillotine was to be imposed because the Government could not get their business, and I went on to explain that she said that it was not possible to make progress last night. I have demolished that argument as well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will forgive me for being hard on him, but he could not have been listening carefully to what I said.

Mr. Maclean: If my memory serves me correctly—others can check Hansard— the only business lost on Monday night was when Labour Members objected to a motion moved by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on behalf of the whole House.

Mr. Gill: That event will have been recorded in the journals of the House, but I take my right hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gill: Not again.
At this stage, I should remind the House that I am not a professional politician who comes to this place simply to talk for the sake of talking. I come to the House to speak when I feel strongly about something and when I have something to say on a subject that I know and understand. I am acting very much out of character this evening by speaking in this debate, but I want to make it clear why I feel constrained to do so. A Bill in which I am interested is being sabotaged because of the Government's ineptitude on Monday, their failure to answer the questions that they were asked and their failure last night to get a grip on Labour Back Benchers, who forced divisions that we need not have had.
I refer now to the comments of the hon. Member for Slough. The House will applaud the way in which she made her suggestions about how the House might operate better. In all sincerity, I say to her that we have all been there. We have all felt frustration about the way in which the House conducts its business, and we have all felt that the House sometimes denies us the opportunity to say what we want or to get our own way. I wish to outline to her, from my experience, how the procedures of the House have been changed by Back Benchers speaking in this House consistently on certain subjects. This has led to amendments to the routine of the House, which have gone a long way towards improving the situation in the way that the hon. Lady would like.
Select Committees were introduced by a Conservative Government in 1979. The consensus of opinion would be that these have been a success. The fact that we can now refer legislation to Select Committees and to other—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering away from the motion again.

Mr. Gill: I take note of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Mr. Gill: Before I give way to the hon. Lady, she should note that if she wants to say something more on the theme that occupied her earlier—a theme that interests me and to which I would like to respond—either she or I will be ruled out of order.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman referred to the establishment of Select Committees in 1979. As I recall, it was Richard Crossman who first had the idea some years before, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is completely irrelevant to the motion, and the hon. Lady knows it.

Mr. Gill: Being a law-abiding citizen, I shall follow your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and conclude my remarks.
This is probably the first time that I have ever spoken in a guillotine debate. I have no ambition to speak in another. I hope that the Minister and the House understand why I felt constrained to be on my feet for however many minutes it has been, on this rather singular occasion.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has entertained us greatly.
I could not help feeling that the Leader of the House did not have her heart in it when she moved the motion. She has not come back for most of the debate. I do not criticise her for that; she is exceptionally busy and I cast no aspersions, but her heart is elsewhere. The becoming hat that she wore yesterday at the garden party, which some of us had the privilege of glimpsing, suits her far, far better than the Madame Defarge creation that she sported briefly this afternoon.
It is interesting that my old friend, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is to respond to the debate, as it was he who said:
The Leader of the House knows that the full three hours will be taken on a guillotine motion…We are at fault if we do not fill all three hours."—[Official Report, 1 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 807–8.]
He once occupied the position that I now occupy and made scintillating speeches, castigating the then Government for introducing guillotines. Unlike some of my distinguished right hon. and hon. Friends, I do not

carry the baggage of Government, and there were occasions when he took me with him, both in the argument and into the Lobby.
I remember an occasion when a guillotine was introduced on a health Bill and I was so appalled that the House was not being given a proper opportunity to discuss it that I made my contribution to the debate and left. Labour Members should remember that they support a Government with an enormous majority. They are playing into the hands of a potentially tyrannical Executive if they too easily support guillotine motions. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) charmingly called them "guee-otine" motions. I hope that she enjoys her holiday in Paree.
Of the two underlying reasons for the debate, one has not yet been mentioned, and that is the way in which we have changed the business of the House and fundamentally altered our Thursdays. I did not approve of the experiment, driven by the Government's proposals, of having Thursday morning sittings and trying to end everything by 7 o'clock. Without that change, we would not be under the current time constraints. Today's debate proves that ending at 7 o'clock on a Thursday, for all our good intentions, is not always possible.
The more immediate reason for this debate is the character of our proceedings—the charade—on Monday night. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—a distinguished theologian, as I gathered as I thumbed through Dod this afternoon—and for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) all underlined the fact that, had it not been for the way in which the Government handled Monday's business, there would have been no unduly late sitting that night.
Those of us who have been here a very long time—I remember sitting through the night, night after night, on industrial relations legislation in the 1970s—do not consider 2 am especially late. However, our proceedings were protracted by the fact that the Government had no direct and sensible answers to perfectly permissible and sensible questions. That point was also made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who talked eloquently about the reputation of the House, about last night's filibuster by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and about that farce of a vote in which there were two tellers, but no voters, for the Noes.
The Government must bear the responsibility for what is happening today. They have behaved extremely badly. We all know that July is a bad month. T. S. Eliot said that
April is the cruellest month
but, for parliamentarians, it is certainly July. I hope that, when we have a structured parliamentary year, the House will rise a little earlier than it will this year.
We are in this quandary today because the Government behaved both arrogantly and incompetently on Monday. Arrogance and incompetence provoke Oppositions. We were told that often enough—in as many words, sometimes—by the Minister, who is now gazing at the ceiling.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I was checking how long the hon. Gentleman had been speaking.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I frequently used to check how long the hon. Gentleman spoke, and he had several marathon records. If he wants to hold a competition, perhaps we can do it for charity one day.
Farce is added to today's proceedings by the fact that there has been no filibustering by either the official Opposition or the Liberal Democrats on either Bill. There have been no fancy points of order or ridiculously involved and complicated speeches on trivial subjects. My hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) both spoke knowledgably, and we had further testimony on the Food Standards Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow.
Ministers have behaved well over the Food Standards Bill and there has been an unusual—for this Government—willingness to listen to constructive points. An important amendment was accepted and everything proceeded in an orderly and sensible manner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border complimented both the Ministers concerned, and I am entirely happy to echo that. Then, last night, in a fit of midsummer pique—it can be described in no other way—at a few moments' notice, a timetable motion was imposed. The Food Standards Bill was not in jeopardy. Nobody was going to seek to talk it out—not that we could anyhow when the Government have such a massive majority. The Bill was receiving mature and proper consideration, and that was what we wished to continue to give it.
It is not for Labour Members to criticise us for taking time on the guillotine motion. In an extremely important, impressive speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is a considerable parliamentarian, talked with great eloquence, and the House listened with great respect as it always does to him, about the background to this manoeuvre. He pointed out, as he is particularly well equipped to do, how Government after Government promise less, not more, legislation. Then, we have repeated breaking of that pledge. This Government are more guilty than any other Government of recent years, as they have driven to get their legislation through. As a result, they treat the House with scant regard and, indeed, sometimes even with contempt. In that splendid speech, my hon. Friend said that what was at issue was freedom of speech, and he was right to make that telling point.
We had just two contributions from the Labour Benches. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) made a brief and, frankly, disgraceful little speech. He then waltzed out of the Chamber and has not been seen since. His attitude was: what a tiresome thing is an Opposition. I say to him in his absence—I hope that he will at least take time to read Hansard— that if, as is most unlikely, he retains his seat or gets another one at some stage, there will come a time when he will sit in opposition. What will he then say about an Opposition being tiresome? Many hon. Gentlemen who are present know full well that what I say is true.

Mr. Barron: indicated assent.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman nods his head. He should take his hon. Friend to the bar one day

and tell him what opposition is all about. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central made a petulant, vindictive speech that was riddled with bitterness.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend took three minutes.

Sir Patrick Cormack: In three minutes, the hon. Gentleman poured out more bile than the Minster, who is exceptionally good natured, could pour out in three hours.
As for the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I do not accuse her of any discourtesy for leaving the Chamber because, as she left, she looked across and said, "I'm starving." She had sat throughout the debate and I hope that she is now enjoying a well-earned snack, so will not mind what I say about her. She talked about the need for consensus, and many of us would agree with much of what she said. However, as a supporter of the Government, she should not lecture this side of the House on consensus.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), shadow Leader of the House, has signed two or three programme motions where we have agreed with the allocation of time. There was no attempt properly to seek consensus on the time to be allocated to the Bills that we shall discuss later this afternoon and on Monday. The Government must learn to behave in a parliamentary way. [Interruption.] That was a jolly quick snack and we are delighted to see the hon. Lady back. I hope that she enjoyed it.
It is interesting to see that one Member who has sat throughout the debate and has obviously taken pleasure in it is the hon. and genial Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). If he wants to learn a little about how frustrating opposition can sometimes be and how important it is for an Opposition to speak out against what they consider to be draconian actions, all he need do is walk to the other end of the Corridor and see his recently ennobled father. How glad I am to see that he describes himself on his writing paper as "the Honourable".

Mr. Hoyle: I am amazed to hear that about my writing paper. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I certainly would not use that title. Will he please check the writing paper, because it certainly is not mine?

Sir Patrick Cormack: If I am wrong in that, of course I apologise. I would hate to make an accusation that proved to be wrong. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman is so described in official literature that I have seen and I am delighted that he is, because nobody deserved the ermine more richly than his honourable dad.
We now have a Government who regard Parliament as their creature. That is a dangerous attitude for any Government to adopt. The Government treat Parliament with a degree of derision that is bad for the body politic. They react with the indignation of the short-tempered owner trying to house-train a puppy when he thinks that his will is being thwarted. It is right that the Government's will should be thwarted. It is right that, this afternoon, we should seek to thwart their will and it is extremely wrong that the Government should have brought this motion to


the House in the way that they did. I hope that we shall not have any more guillotine motions in this Parliament, but I suspect that we will, beyond the one—

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: There is one on Monday.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I know that there is already one on the Order Paper for Monday.
If we do have further guillotine motions, I hope that the Government will never again behave with this ill-tempered petulance, which has been provoked by their own arrogance and incompetence in dealing properly with a Bill, and has put the House of Commons into a legislative straitjacket. This is a sorry day for Parliament. It is a sorry note on which to come to the end of a long and fairly gruelling parliamentary Session. I have no hesitation in urging all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and anybody in the Chamber who cares about the House and the democratic process, to vote emphatically against the Government.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): This has not been an interesting debate. First, I apologise to the House on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for her unavoidable absence during the latter part of the debate and the winding-up speeches.
I may be wrong but, as I look at the Conservative Benches, I see only two faces who have that incredible beauty of experience of having sat on both sides of the House before this Government took office—the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and, I think, the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). [Interruption.] I may be wrong, but the point is that the vast majority of them have, until now, spent all their life in this House on the Government Benches. I accept, therefore, that opposition is a new experience for them.
The procedures of the House have changed over the years since I came in. I fully accept that I have made speeches that can be thrown back at me—the longer we are here, the more likely that is to happen. I should like to say, however, that I have learned from those experiences. I know how to play parliamentary games, but I also know how to get a result. I like to make progress and to make changes to bring this place, at least remotely, into the latter part of the 20th century by introducing quality legislation. On any assessment that might be done, if this place were in the private sector, of our performance in terms of the quality of legislation, it is abysmal. We have attempted from day one to produce quality legislation on the Food Standards Agency. That does not necessarily mean that we used the old methods. In fact, by definition, we have had to use different methods.
The proposal to establish an agency started life when the Labour party was in opposition. Professor Philip James was commissioned to have a look at the idea of a food standards agency and see how it would work and what its functions and powers might be. We received the

report a week after the general election, published it and then consulted on it. We received some 600-odd submissions.

Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: No I will not give way for the moment. We then produced a White Paper "The Food Standards Agency: a Force for Change" in January 1998, on which we received about 1,100 submissions as a result of a systematic consultation.
The Select Committee on Agriculture conducted an inquiry in 1998 into the general issues surrounding food safety, and published a report. We fully intended to produce a draft Bill last summer or autumn but, for reasons that have been explained in the past few months, it was not possible. Even in the Queen's Speech debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that it was our intention to produce a draft Bill and, if possible, to legislate this Session. That depended to some extent on matters in the other place.
We produced a draft Bill with notes on clauses in January this year, on which we again consulted systematically, not just as a paper exercise but by taking almost a roadshow to the regions. I went to five separate regional meetings and listened to, rather than spoke to, 1,500 or so people. We consulted on what was in the draft Bill and the consultation paper in respect of the levy.
At the same time, we set up the Special Select Committee. As we still intended, if possible, to legislate this Session—everyone can see the kind of timetable that we were working to—we asked the Special Select Committee to do a quick job. The general consensus among those who have read the report is that it did an excellent job in the short time available. It rightly made it clear that it would have liked more time. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health spent two sessions in front of the Special Select Committee at the beginning and the end of its proceedings, for a total of five hours. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who chaired it, the Committee took submissions from 24 outside bodies and three individuals and produced a report that resulted in about a dozen substantial changes to the draft Bill.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) criticised the Government for changing the draft Bill before it became the main Bill that came to the House. I cannot imagine anything more ludicrous. We have listened throughout and consulted at each stage. We made substantial changes to the proposals from Philip James's report to the White Paper, from the White Paper to the draft Bill, from the draft Bill to the Bill that came to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I will give way in a minute. I am going to finish the point. We did not make all the changes that the Select Committee suggested, and we have explained why. We have not made changes furtively, and we are happy to explain the changes that we have made later today in discussions on the amendments.
Every Government amendment on the amendment paper today is the result of the Government's commitments in Committee. I shall tell the House now,


because there will not be time later on, that other Government amendments—technical amendments relating to devolution for Northern Ireland and Scotland—which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have refrained from tabling today, will be tabled when the Bill reaches the other place. We knew that, if those amendments were not reached today or, for some reason, the Government decided not to move them, that would send the wrong signals—it has nothing to do with food safety—to the countries involved.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: No. I want to finish the point that I am making.
We were still committed to obtaining Royal Assent this Session. The advertisements for the chair and deputy chair of the Food Standards Agency were published a couple of weeks ago, within a week of Second Reading. It has been public knowledge for a while that Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, subject to the will of this House, is programmed for Friday 30 July. To make that a reality, the Bill has to be delivered to the other place today, not tomorrow. We knew that all this week. Therefore, when we saw the possibility that that would not happen, we had to take appropriate action.

Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: No. I am going to finish this point. I will then take questions, if we are going to have a Select Committee-type of operation.
We have to deliver the Bill today so that the other place can complete its Committee stage and any other investigation in the carry-over period so that we can deal with any Lords amendments before the end of this parliamentary Session.
Amendments have also been tabled relating to the financial provisions. It is up to the Opposition whether we have a debate on them so that they can be explained. As I promised in Committee, I have some information and some figures that I should like to give to the House about the financing of the agency. I cannot organise the business—we are in the hands of the Opposition. That being so, we had to take action to guarantee that the Bill would complete its stages today.
I am not saying that there would have been a filibuster on this Bill. It was quite possible that yesterday's business could have knocked out today's business. No one can contradict me on that. It is also clear that delivery of the commitments that were honourably entered into by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen could not be delivered. Therefore, in the interests of the package of business that the Government are asking the House to approve, and given that we have announced the dates of the recess, it is wholly reasonable to move a timetable motion on a Bill on which we have nothing to hide.
At 7.30 pm on Tuesday, I personally handed to the Opposition copies of all the Government amendments being tabled that evening. I even gave them the opportunity to table amendments to the Government amendments. We were open. We gave all those commitments in opposition. There is nothing new in

the Government amendments today. It is true that we have conducted the Bill in a different way from day one. For that, I make no apology on behalf of the Government. We are determined to get quality legislation through this place so that the agency works from day one.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister must realise that we do not criticise his conduct of operations, or the Bill. We accept that it is, by and large, a sensible Bill, which has great cross-party support, but why, oh why, would he not accept the undertaking that he was given? I can tell him that it would have been delivered. Instead, he has ended a good ministerial story with a rather sad last chapter by imposing a guillotine.

Mr. Rooker: In replying to the debate, I have concentrated on the specifics. The whole of my contribution was devoted to answering that question. I shall give way to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), and then I shall conclude.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to make it clear that he has treated me—as the leading Opposition spokesman on the matter—and the rest of the Committee with the utmost courtesy throughout the Bill's proceedings so far; I appreciate that. I hope that its remaining stages will be dealt with in the same manner.
In that light, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the accusation that he threw at my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? She and I—in my response to her intervention—were not suggesting that the Government should not have altered the Bill. We were simply making the point that, because they had altered the Bill—quite rightly in many instances—it was necessary to study the new version and give it proper scrutiny. To change the Bill does not remove that objective.

Mr. Rooker: The underlying theme of the criticism seems to be that, for some reason, if any change that the Government make to the draft after the White Paper is not subject to parliamentary debate, we are cheating somehow. We are not. We have been wholly and utterly open about the matter. To improve the Bill as it went along cannot be a charge that can be held against us. There was no criticism in Committee that we had changed it from the draft. I sincerely hope—

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: I will, but only because I like the hon. Gentleman. He has been extremely positive about the measure. Furthermore, he was a Member of this place for only six months in 1974 and was out of the place for 18 years. I shall give way to him and then I am determined to sit down, or we shall be in danger of losing the chance to discuss the amendments.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister; I cannot take all these compliments from both sides of the House—they are most damaging to my reputation.
I agree with the point that the Minister made at the outset; the experience of the Bill has been uniquely constructive. It has been most helpful.


However, that does not explain why this motion is before us. The Minister is right to say that there might have been a problem with the Employment Relations Bill, but that could have been dealt with separately. There is no evidence, from anything that he has told us this afternoon, that the treatment of the Food Standards Bill would be obstructed—none whatever.

Mr. Rooker: I explained that there were time constraints because of the need to send the Bill to the other place. There are 13 groups of amendments. At two hours a group, I could easily organise a two-hour debate on any group of amendments, and that would make 26 hours. That is the reason for the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 108.

Division No. 271]
[4.51 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coleman, Iain


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Colman, Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Cranston, Ross


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Beard, Nigel
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Begg, Miss Anne
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Berry, Roger
Darvill, Keith


Best, Harold
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Borrow, David
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Denham, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Drown, Ms Julia


Burden, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burgon, Colin
Edwards, Huw


Butler, Mrs Christine
Efford, Clive


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Caplin, Ivor
Flynn, Paul


Casale, Roger
Follett, Barbara


Caton, Martin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clapham, Michael
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Fyfe, Maria



Galloway, George


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gardiner, Barry


Clelland, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clwyd, Ann
Gerrard, Neil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cohen, Harry
Godsiff, Roger





Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Merron, Gillian


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Grogan, John
Mitchell, Austin


Gunnell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Morley, Elliot


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Healey, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Norris, Dan


Hill, Keith
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoey, Kate
Olner, Bill


Hope, Phil
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hopkins, Kelvin
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim
Pendry, Tom


Hoyle, Lindsay
Perham, Ms Linda


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hurst, Alan
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pound, Stephen


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prescott, Rt Hon John



Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Rammell, Bill



Rapson, Syd


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kemp, Fraser
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S
Roy, Frank


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruddock, Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Salter, Martin


Laxton, Bob
Sarwar, Mohammad


Leslie, Christopher
Savidge, Malcolm


Linton, Martin
Sawford, Phil


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Lock, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Love, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAllion, John
Singh, Marsha


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McIsaac, Shona
Snape, Peter


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Spellar, John


McNulty, Tony
Squire, Ms Rachel


MacShane, Denis
Steinberg, Gerry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stevenson, George


McWalter, Tony
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McWilliam, John
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stott, Roger


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stringer, Graham






Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Tipping, Paddy
Wills, Michael


Todd, Mark
Winnick, David


Touhig, Don
Wise, Audrey


Trickett, Jon
Wray, James


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wyatt, Derek


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vis, Dr Rudi
Mr. Greg Pope and


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES


Amess, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Leigh, Edward


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Letwin, Oliver


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Loughton, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Blunt, Crispin
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
Major, Rt Hon John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Mates, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Burnett, John
Moore, Michael


Burstow, Paul
Nicholls, Patrick


Cable, Dr Vincent
Norman, Archie


Chope, Christopher
Öpik, Lembit


Clappison, James
Page, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Paice, James


Colvin, Michael
Prior, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Cotter, Brian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Curry, Rt Hon David
St Aubyn, Nick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Sanders Adrian


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Day, Stephen
Shepherd, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Duncan, Alan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Spring, Richard


Faber, David
Swayne, Desmond


Fearn, Ronnie
Syms, Robert


Flight, Howard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Fox, Dr Liam
Tyler, Paul


Fraser, Christopher
Tyrie, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Viggers, Peter


Gill, Christopher
Wallace, James


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Walter, Robert


Gorrie, Donald
Wardle, Charles


Gray, James
Waterson, Nigel


Green, Damian
Wells, Bowen


Greenway, John
Wilkinson, John


Hague, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Willis, Phil


Hancock, Mike
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Harvey, Nick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Woodward, Shaun


Horam, John
Yeo, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey






Tellers for the Noes:


Mr. John M. Taylor and


Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Food Standards Bill and on the Employment Relations Bill—

Orders of the Day — Timetable

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Food Standards Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) Remaining proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Employment Relations Bill shall be completed on the allotted day and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement on that day.

Orders of the Day — Questions to be put

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(1).

(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a New Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put, under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on Amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Amendments or Motions.

3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(2).

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.

(3). If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

 (a) the Question on any amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
 (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall


put forthwith a separate Question on any other amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(8) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(9) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting on the allotted day.

Orders of the Day — Miscellaneous

4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings—

 (a) on the Food Standards Bill at today's sitting, and
 (b) on the Employment Relations Bill on the allotted day,
and those proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on either of the Bills.

6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken or to recommit the Food Standards Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either of the Bills except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

8. The Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to proceedings on any such Motion.

9.—(1) If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16 December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Food Standards Bill.

(2) If on the allotted day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock (or, in accordance with the Order of the House [16 December 1998], Four o'clock), and proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill have begun before that time, or if such a Motion stands over from an earlier day, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Employment Relations Bill.

10. If at the sitting today or on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1(1) or (2), no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Interpretation

11. In this Order, 'allotted day' means any day on which the Employment Relations Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

Orders of the Day — Food Standards Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

LABELLING OF FOOD PRODUCTS

'.—The Agency has a duty to require that all food products are accurately labelled with a complete list of ingredients, whether they are genetically-modified, the country of origin of each major ingredient and the system of production where appropriate.'.—[Mrs. Spelman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in clause 7, page 3, line 35, after 'matters', insert
', including the country of origin of all major ingredients,'.

Mrs. Spelman: As a relatively new Member of the House, I feel as if I have just been present at a family row, in which some family members who were drawn into the discussion were never really implicated in the first place. I want to place on the record the fact that there was never any intention on the part of members of the Standing Committee, who worked in the most constructive atmosphere with the Government on the Bill, to imply that the guillotine had anything to do with the conduct of the Committee.
I want to place on the record also a tribute to the work of the members of the Special Select Committee. It was the quality of their work that enabled our deliberations in Committee to be conducted in an extremely constructive and cordial manner.
I reiterate that I was not criticising the extent of the modification of the original draft Bill, but pointing out that, because of the extent of the modification, the Bill needed careful and considered scrutiny in the Standing Committee. I re-emphasise that that was not criticism of the modification per se.
Obviously, we are disappointed that the time for Report stage has been limited. For tactical reasons, some things are best kept to be raised on Report instead of being debated—and perhaps rejected—in Committee. The eighth group of amendments on today's selection list is just one example of something new, which has not yet been thoroughly debated, that we wanted to keep for Report. I am anxious in case, in the time available, we do not manage to reach the important subject of appeals procedure.
As we said several times in Committee, we are keen for the new Food Standards Agency to be a success. That success will be measured by the confidence that producers, retailers and, above all, consumers, have in the information and advice that emanates from it.
We have amended the original amendment that we tabled in Committee, which may have created a misapprehension that we sought to usurp local authorities'


role in enforcing the present labelling rules. That was never our intent, and I hope that the new clause makes it perfectly clear that we recognise the very important role that local authorities play in enforcing labelling rules. However, our concern is about the present labelling rules. Fundamentally, the new clause would address the weakness in the present rules that govern labelling.
An important opportunity will be missed if the Food Standards Agency does not, once and for all, crack the problem of the weakness in the present arrangements for food labelling in this country. The duty of labelling, although mentioned in the explanatory notes, does not appear in the Bill. We do not intend, in this guillotined discussion of the new clause and the subject, to revisit arguments that took place in Committee. I know that hon. Members diligently read the Hansard of the proceedings of the House and of Committee.
I have tried very hard to bring some fresh points to the discussion of the very important issue of food labelling. In last night's edition of the Evening Standard, an extract was printed from Sue Dibb's book, "What the label doesn't tell you", which makes cautionary reading for the consumer. It lists a series of meaningless or misleading terms that are currently used in the labelling of food. For example, what are called "low fat sausages" may contain less fat than sausages not labelled "low fat" but are not necessarily low in fat. The terms "lean" or "extra lean", often used in relation to meats, can mean whatever one wants. They are essentially meaningless.

Mr. John Bercow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I am spurred by the motive force of self-interest. As a keen consumer of beef, and specifically of minced beef, my ears pricked up when my hon. Friend referred to "lean" and "extra lean". That is a source of concern to me because I often buy "extra lean" minced beef, thinking that I am being thoroughly healthy in the process. Is my hon. Friend seeking to disabuse me of that hope?

Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Obviously, we sincerely hope that, in future, it will be the role and responsibility of the Food Standards Agency to define precisely what "lean" and "extra lean" mean. Some retailers supplement the information on the label by stating the percentage of fat, but there is no clearly defined standard for what is meant by "lean" or "extra lean". In case my hon. Friend should be tempted to try other cuts of meat, they, too, suffer from a similar problem, because I should tell him that the word "trimmed" has no specific definition either.
Another example is to be found on pre-packed, carton-packed fruit juices. The term "pure juice" is often used. In fact, that applies to concentrated fruit juice which has been shipped, diluted and heat treated. That is distinct from the term "juice drink", a product which contains as little as 5 per cent. juice. These terms are misleading, but not always after the consumer has tasted the product. At that stage some of the differences become much more apparent. At the time of purchase, however, things are a little unclear.
Another example of a misleading product might affect the consumption patterns of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The term "smoked bacon" would probably lead hon. Members to envisage a

traditional smoke-house for the production of rashers of bacon to be consumed at breakfast. I regret to inform the House that in many instances the smoked flavour is an added solution in the production process.
Another misleading term is "light beer". We often think of "light" in terms of a reduced calorie product. In this instance, however, it means lighter in colour, and has nothing to do with alcohol or taste.
There is misleading labelling of fruits. For example, the term "strawberry flavour" has nothing to do with strawberries. It may be a completely artificial flavouring. However, the term "strawberry flavoured"—everything is in the "ed" at the end—makes all the difference. It means that the flavouring has come from real strawberries.

Dr. Ian Gibson: The hon. Lady is talking about misnomers, and I notice that the new clause includes the term "genetically-modified". Is that not a misnomer? We have been genetically modifying food crops for years and years. Indeed, we eat lots of foreign DNA every day. Whenever we have an apple we eat some DNA. Is there not a dreadful misnomer in the new clause?

Mrs. Spelman: I shall be talking at length about genetic modification and labelling. The Food Standards Agency could begin by providing a proper definition of genetic modification. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's point.
I learned a thing or two from the guide to misleading labelling. New to me was the fact that bottled water that is labelled "spring water" could be tap water. Only bottles that are labelled "mineral water" strictly contain mineral water from a source as defined by the law.
I have taken some of the time of the House by reading into the record some examples of present problems with labelling. I have done so because it is my sincere wish that the FSA will get to grips with precisely these misleading terms as soon as the provisions come into force.
We might think quite lightheartedly of examples of foods and beverages that we have known and consumed, and perhaps we have learned to live with some misleading terms. However, the extent of misleading labelling may have serious consequences. I am sure that all hon. Members would join with me in extending condolences to the family of Ross Baillie. He suffered from a nut allergy and was unaware, on consuming a packet of coronation chicken sandwiches, that that product contained the very ingredient to which, regrettably, he was fatally allergic. There is a serious side to misleading labelling.
The new clause highlights the need to specify the country of origin of each major ingredient and the system of production used. As a result of food scares, consumers have become anxious about methods of production used. Present labelling is unhelpful in that respect. I shall cite the example of eggs, a product that has been at the centre of controversy in the past. The consumer can be easily confused. Upon entering a supermarket, he or she will find an array of egg boxes on the shelves, which can be labelled in a variety of different ways. For example, boxes may be labelled "farm fresh eggs". The consumer may be led to think that these eggs have been produced in a free-range style. However, farm fresh eggs can be laid by battery hens. The same is true of the term "country fresh


eggs". Those also can be laid by battery hens. Barn eggs are laid by hens that are not caged, but may well still be enclosed in a barn. Only the term "free range eggs" provides an assurance that the hens have continuous access to outdoors.
How the chickens are kept matters to many consumers. They believe that that may affect the safety of the product and/or the welfare of the bird. Unless they go shopping with a glossary of the terms used to label food, consumers may easily think that they have bought a product from a production system that is entirely different from the reality.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have seen the term "organic eggs". Can the hon. Lady help me by defining an organic egg?

Mrs. Spelman: The term "organic" is much more precisely defined. Organic producers in agriculture have a vested interest in making sure that the term is used strictly, only in relation to organic means of production, and as the House knows, they are extremely concerned when there is any possibility that their organic methods of production may have been contaminated. Like the term "mineral water", "organic" is one of the terms used in the labelling of food products in which the consumer has learned to have more confidence. However, that confidence can be sustained only if the organic nature of the production is truly protected.
British food producers and retailers have had to pay dearly for past food crises. The Minister said in Committee that producers in this country have had to be doubly or trebly careful about their production methods in order to restore confidence in British produce. It is not difficult to understand producers' desire for the word "British" on a food product label to be associated in the consumer's mind with a premium product, in which the consumer can have more confidence than in an imported product, whose method of production may not have been as strictly controlled as in this country.
The industry may reasonably expect careful production to be a plus point attributed to British food, yet the labelling of country of origin remains elusive. Beef labelling is a case in which some progress has been made. The beef industry particularly has had to go the extra mile to restore confidence in its product. It has done so to good effect, leading to restored levels of beef consumption.
It is permissible for the country of origin of beef to be stated on the label. It remains unclear to members of the Standing Committee why that does not apply to pigmeat, sheepmeat and poultry produced in Britain. Consumers want to see the country of origin on the label of the meat that they purchase, for good reason—their confidence in the safety and public health aspects of the domestic product.
Consumers have a right to such information in order to make an informed choice. That is the essence of clause 7. Concern about the system of production has become more acute in the case of imported produce. As a result of the unfortunate British experience of food scares, we have stricter controls on our methods of production than some of the countries from which we import food.
The use of prophylactic antibiotics, which has been banned in production systems in this country, is still allowed in some countries from which we import meat. Yet the consumer has no way of knowing whether a product comes from a domestic source, where the restrictions are tighter, or has been imported.
There is growing concern that antibiotic resistance in humans may be linked to the use of prophylactic antibiotics in rearing animals. That is undoubtedly why limitations have been imposed in Britain. The consumer rightly does not wish to expose himself or herself to that risk if at all possible. But under the present labelling rules it is not possible for the consumer to determine whether a product has been imported.
The strongest argument against labelling food with the country of origin is that it would lead to protectionism. But, in truth, the consumer simply wants to know where his or her food has come from to protect public health. The failure to label food by country of origin will make the agency's role of advising the public all the more difficult in the event of a foreign food scare.
Take the recent example of products from Belgium which may have been contaminated with dioxin. Initially, the Ministry advised consumers that there had been no imports of poultry and eggs from Belgium which may have been contaminated—only to be corrected, rather embarrassingly, by the supermarkets, which said that some might have come in.
That very week I showed my nanny the problem. A pack of chicken breasts that she had purchased from the local supermarket had no clue as to their origin. There might have been a label on the shelf that made it clear that they had come from British hens, but a few days on, and to me as a secondary consumer, there was no way of knowing from where the products had come. The advice at the time from the Ministry was, "When in doubt, bin it", so bin it we did.

Dr. Desmond Turner: I am interested to hear an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman advocate the advance of the nanny state. That is quite unusual. Given the deficiencies that the hon. Lady is pointing out in labelling legislation, will she remind us of its history?

Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood my reference to my nanny. I was obviously talking about an employee of my own. Far from being an advocate of the nanny state, I am saying that the whole point of the clause is to provide information to ensure that the consumer can make a well-informed decision. It is not a question of taking a decision on behalf of the consumer, but allowing the consumer to decide. That is our strongest argument for ensuring that some misleading labelling terms are corrected.
With the vast growth in the range, quality and sophistication of food retail products, the need for labelling has become all the more imperative.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Does the hon. Lady agree that, where the product in question comes from outside the EU, within which we are assured that all the rules and regulations are enforced in an equal and even-handed way as compared with the United Kingdom, there is perhaps an even greater need for it to be labelled.


For example, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, it is possible that the chicken that she binned came from Thailand.

Mrs. Spelman: I am coming to chicken from Thailand next. My hon. Friend reads my mind. But before we leave the EU, there is a problem in relation to labelling a product with its country of origin, even within the EU. For example, the term "made in Italy" can be misleading. That term means that Italy was the last place where the product underwent substantial change. For example, a jar of olives may be labelled "Made in Italy", but the olives could have been grown in north Africa and the finished product assembled in Italy.
A little closer to home, anticipating this morning that I might have to forgo a regular lunchtime refreshment because of the modernised hours during which the House sits on Thursdays, I sought a product that would be easy and convenient to eat. I purchased a Cornish pasty, but I was dismayed to find that all the label told me was that the product had been produced in the United Kingdom. I could not be sure that the beef in the product had not been imported and, as a consumer, I have concerns about the relative safety of imported beef.

Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Lady has introduced the magnificent Cornish pasty to the debate.

Mr. Mike Hancock: The oggie.

Mr. George: The Cornish oggie, as my hon. Friend says. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that products described as Cornish or Yorkshire should be made in or derived from that place, otherwise they would not be legitimate?

Mrs. Spelman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely essential to preserve the integrity of national and regional products.

Mr. David Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Although I should hate to disagree with her and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), and although I agree entirely that there has to be food integrity, the Cornish pasty is but one example of a food that might not necessarily require a geographical description. Any piece of pastry wrapped round meat of a certain type might be described as a Cornish pasty, which is a generic rather than a geographically based food.

Mrs. Spelman: My right hon. Friend makes a helpful intervention. He spent many hours with us in Committee and referred to many examples of the way in which the integrity of traditional products should be preserved by accurate labelling.
Chicken Kiev is another classic example of a modern convenience food. Obviously, its main ingredient is chicken. Very often, the harassed housewife, who combines work and running her home, will aim to buy precisely such a convenience product at the local supermarket. The label may say, "Made in Britain", but she may be completely unaware that the chicken may have been imported from Thailand. Chicken production in Thailand is not subject to the same strict regulations

as poultrymeat production in this country. Indeed, substances that are banned from use in poultrymeat production in this country are used in Thailand.
When such simple examples are given to ordinary consumers, they lose faith in the term "Made in Britain" because they cannot read the label with any confidence and reassure themselves that they are protected from a risk that they have read or heard about. They cannot be sure that reading the label on a product will enable them to take the preventive measures necessary to minimise the risks to themselves. The consumer can be easily misled in that way.
Numerous examples were referred to in Committee and one of the most notable was the fact that it is possible to import live animals to this country. The Minister is aware that French pigs are imported to Suffolk and turned into bacon labelled "British". The hon. Gentleman expressed his intention to clamp down on such misleading labelling, but that example shows that the food labelling regulations are seriously lacking.
5.30 pm
The concern about misleading labelling and the future role of the Foods Standards Agency reaches a topical and controversial point when we come to the labelling of genetically modified material in food. I understand that today's Food Commission report draws attention to the risk of labelling foods "GM free" while accepting a variable tolerance level for some genetically modified ingredients.
That will do nothing to help to inspire consumer confidence in foods that are produced with that new technology. It may be every bit as bad as the previous problem-now stamped on by the Government—of using the catch-all, throwaway disclaimer, "This product may contain genetically modified material" when, often, in practice, it did not. I am pleased that the Government have clamped down on the easy disclaimer route for the labelling of food, but they may run into another problem if the term "GM free" is loosely used.
The mere fact that there is discussion of what would be a tolerable level of genetically modified ingredients within any food product—it was reported in yesterday's edition of the Evening Standard—is a warning to the consumer already to have doubts about the phrase "GM free". The consumer cannot be sure that, in reality, the food is as it is described. The supermarket chain Sainsbury's says that it is working with a tolerance level for GM ingredients of 0.1 per cent., but, according to press reports, the European Union is preparing to allow food to be labelled "GM free" even if as much as 3 per cent. of its contents are GMO derived.
Some retailers claim they will require zero tolerance; others say that they will simply aim at that. The truth is that, if we want to eat GM-free food, it will be remarkably difficult to be sure. The British Retail Consortium has said that it will approach the matter on a de minimis basis, under which ingredients that are present in minute quantities—0.01 per cent. of the total—do not need to be acknowledged.
The Food Standards Agency is to be set up as a regulatory authority for GM food. There is an immediate and urgent task: to get to grips with the labelling of GM food. That is why we call for that to be made explicit in the Bill.
Incidentally, where does it leave the powers and influence of the Food Standards Agency when the Welsh Assembly is already addressing the issue of the genetic modification and the necessary powers to manage its own control and labelling? We discussed at length the implications of devolution for the Food Standards Agency. I have no wish to reiterate the debate in Standing Committee, but that precise example shows that our concerns about different standards arising in the United Kingdom are at risk of becoming a reality.
We welcomed the Minister's confirmation in Committee that the Food Standards Agency would have the power to act throughout the United Kingdom, without intrusive Government intervention, or its authority being weakened by the piecemeal, devolutionist thrust of the Bill. That final practical example, however, presents a good case for coming back to the question of how to resolve the problems involving the devolved relationship and the Foods Standards Agency.
I impress on the House how great the demand is for accurate food labelling to be achieved once and for all. Consumers have a right to be accurately informed about the content, origin and method of production of the food that they eat. I draw the Minister's attention to an article on the front page of last week's edition of the Farmers Guardian, which reports that its "Let's have it labelled" campaign has won massive support throughout the farming industry, with more than 5,000 signatures collected at agricultural shows throughout the country. At one show alone, the great Yorkshire show, 500 signatures were collected. They report the demand from local and county shows that imported food should be clearly labelled so that consumers at least have the option to buy British.
In calling for food labelling to be a duty of the new Food Standards Agency explicitly set out in the Bill, our paramount aim is to protect public health. To achieve that, consumers must be able to read food labels with confidence. We therefore strongly commend the new clause.

Dr. Peter Brand: I support the spirit behind the new clause, which was moved so comprehensively and at such fascinating length. The examples used by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) demonstrate clearly that people need nutritional value advice as well as food safety advice. I welcome the conversion of Conservative Front-Bench Members on that point.

Mr. Gill: That is not what my hon. Friend was saying. She was saying that we want information on the label so that consumers can choose. We do not want the Government or any other body to say what people should eat because of its nutritional value. That would be acting as a nanny state, and we do not agree with that.

Dr. Brand: That is not what I would suggest, either. Consumers need information that is scientifically well founded so that they can make up their minds about what to do. In that sense, I welcome the new clause.
I was slightly confused about the discussion on the use of antibiotic growth promoters, as it seemed to run counter to amendment No. 10, which we are unlikely to

reach if we continue at this rate. That amendment would decouple the FSA from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which clearly makes no sense whatever.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Perhaps the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) will explain that.

Dr. Brand: Yes. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Meriden could explain that later in the debate.
We await with great interest the Minister's response to the new clause. I shall be extremely brief on all the amendments, because it is important that we have an opportunity to speak on every amendment, rather than having them rushed through at the end.

Mr. Maclean: I rise to support the new clause—[Interruption.] I appreciate the welcoming chorus from Labour Members. It is interesting that they make the effort to speak in this debate when they were remarkably silent in Committee.
The new clause has considerable merit. It is important that consumers can make an informed choice but, at times, it is important that they can make an ignorant choice, in the proper sense of the word. We make such choices all the time, but at least we have that choice. We often look at the labels on food and make decisions that may not be based on the best science or rationale.
Sometimes, our choice is based on the product's price. At other times, it is based on our perception of the product. We may sometimes feel that only a bottle of French wine will suffice, but on other occasions we may prefer Australian wine.

Mr. Peter Luff: English wine.

Mr. Maclean: There are some good English wines, although I have never found a good red English wine. No doubt that comment will result in more death threats next week. However, there are some quite good white English wines. I can make that choice because the country of origin is on the label.
The problem with food labelling is that the country of origin is put on the label when it suits the producer or retailer. It is included on all products where the retailer or producer thinks that it is a selling bonus. That happens in the wine business. Stilton cheese is another example—there is an added premium if the country of origin is on the label. If a producer thinks that his product will have a certain cachet because it is American or German, he adds the country of origin to the label. When the consumer does not see the country of origin on a label, he can always resort to the golden rule that the producers or manufacturers of that product are not as proud of it as they should be. There must be some good reason for the country of origin not to be specified; it is easier to persuade the consumer to purchase by making other claims on the label.
All food labels make claims of some sort. They may not make claims in the technical MAFF sense—claims, for instance, that products contain low cholesterol or low fat—but, by its very nature, labelling is intended to summarise the nature of a product for advertising purposes. It is a selling mechanism in itself.


The producers of food, even more than the producers of other materials, try to convey the key messages that they consider to be the strongest selling points.
Naturally, Governments have traditionally insisted that labelling—not necessarily labelling on the front of products, but certainly labelling on the back of such products as the Cornish pasty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—should include descriptions that, at times, food manufacturers may not wish to include. I am thinking of, for instance, nutritional content, fat content, and other important information that the consumer wants.
I merely say this: why stop at the present amount of information on the label? Of course we want to know about the energy content, the fat content, the salt content and the sugar content. The labels give us the nutritional information. It is sensible to want to know whether a product is gluten free, and whether it is suitable for people with a nut allergy. We will want to know whether the product has been approved as being genuinely organic, but we can only go by some of the approved standards. If there is a symbol on the product saying that it has been approved by the Soil Association, we cannot be sure that it is "perfectly" organic—I do not think that there is any perfectly organic foodstuff in the world—but we can at least know that it has crossed a certain threshold of organic production, and has been approved by the Soil Association or some other organisation.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclean: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman at any time. I rather enjoy his interventions.

Mr. Hoyle: I am very worried by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I think that he is discrediting all organic farmers, and that he should withdraw his comments. He is making a very irrational point, and there is a grave danger that he could put a lot of people out of business.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly ridiculous as the day goes on. Obviously he is not deaf this time—

Mr. Hoyle: What?

Mr. Maclean: It must be the stupidity that is cutting in on this occasion.
It is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" organic, just as it is impossible to describe any product as "perfectly" safe. If someone proves to me that a product is 100 per cent. organic, I shall be happy to endorse it; but does the Soil Association claim that all products featuring its logo saying that those products are organic according to its standards are 100 per cent. perfectly organically produced? Of course not. Those whose products qualify for the Soil Association logo have crossed the quality threshold, which is very high. That gives the consumer an idea of the nature of the product concerned.
We are merely suggesting an addition to existing information on labels, which many consumers find helpful, although some will find it irrelevant. Some people

who want to buy a Cornish pasty will use criteria other than the nutritional information on the back of the packaging. Some will want to know the proportion of meat in relation to the proportion of pastry; some will want to know whether the pasty has actually come from Cornwall; others will not care about those things, but will want to know the country of origin. Not every consumer reads everything on the label, and makes an informed choice after taking all that information into account. If every consumer did that, the queues in supermarkets would be even longer. When the Minister studies the food surveys that MAFF has produced, he will see that consumers sometimes make irrational choices. Indeed, according to the dietary experts, they sometimes make wrong choices. Nevertheless, the choices are theirs, based on the information on the labels.
The new clause suggests the inclusion of information that most consumers will find handy and interesting: whether products are genetically modified, the country of origin, and the system of production. I think that, in regard to the system of production, the Government could be in a strong position in the future. Our production systems are one of Britain's strongest selling points, and we need to market that better on labels.
5.45 pm
I suspect that the Minister would confirm that any survey of consumers asking, "Do you prefer buying food produced in factory or less humane systems"—however those may be described; whatever may be the current politically correct term for such systems—"or those produced in totally humane systems", consumers will certainly say, "We want products from totally humane systems—the best that there are." One could have disputes on what constitutes humanity or inhumanity in food production, or on which systems are best for food safety and animal welfare, but that is not the point of my speech.
The point is that consumers say that they are interested in purchasing products from systems that are more humanely organised. At times, however, those very same consumers may not be willing to pay the premium of such systems. Nevertheless, generally—the Minister rightly boasts about this—whether in pigmeat production, free-range chicken meat or in future battery cages, Britain leads the world in systems of animal husbandry and animal welfare. I think that the Minister would also say that Britain leads the world in checks on veterinary products and on residual veterinary contaminants in meat.
Therefore, identification as "British produced" would be a very great selling point to those concerned about animal welfare, and I hope that we shall be able to take that route. I appreciate that the Minister would have enormous difficulties in persuading his European Union partners to establish such a system and in insisting that foreign food should be so labelled. However, it is certainly within his gift to encourage British producers of quality products to adopt country of origin labelling, and I urge him to do so today.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on Report—which I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), think is an extremely important part of a Bill's passage. Report and Third Reading provide many hon. Members—who, for one reason or another,


have been unable to speak on a Bill on Second Reading, or to play their part in Committee—with an opportunity to comment both on a Bill's provisions and on amendments made in Committee.
I comment on behalf of my constituents, who consist not only of farmers and growers, but of consumers. To all those who might have criticised me in the past, saying that I was too much on the side of farmers, I point out that I have many more consumers than farmers in my constituency. Nevertheless, I believe that, on the whole, farmers work very hard to produce wholesome foods and other products. I also follow in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in all that he said about British produce—to which I shall return later in my speech.
One of the difficulties of a shortened Report stage is that many excellent amendments on important provisions may not be debated—and I am referring specifically to the important provision of a right of appeal. I had always believed that we in the United Kingdom believed in justice and that, if a Government agency ruled on a certain matter, producers would always have a right of appeal against that ruling. Amendment No. 1 would reintroduce such a right of appeal, but we may not be able to consider it, and that is a pity.
I acknowledge that the Government went to great trouble to introduce an innovative way of ensuring that the draft Bill was scrutinised, and that the results of that process have been widely acclaimed on both sides of the House. Moreover, proceedings on the Bill in Committee were very amicable, and that is also to be welcomed. Members of the public do not always realise that, whichever party is in government, there is often much common ground between the Government and the Opposition on matters of common sense. Therefore, I commend what has gone on.
The Government are concerned about the wholesomeness of food and the health of the nation. Perhaps it is pertinent to reflect that although the agency to be set up by the Bill will ensure that food produced in the United Kingdom is produced to the highest standards, it will omit the most important part, in that it does not relate, nor could it relate, to food produced on the continent and elsewhere, because of the rules of the EU. These rules always seem to me to be ridiculous, and I cannot understand why neither the previous Government nor this one have tackled the problem with more enthusiasm and energy.
There is no doubt that for beef, pigmeat or lamb—as well as eggs—the animals have been raised to the highest welfare standards. Farmers in my constituency are proud of the way in which they raise and care for their stock, and they send their stock to market in the best possible condition. We all know that that cannot be said of many countries in the EU. It is essential, for that reason, that British products are properly labelled—by that, I mean not labelled in a misleading way. For example, "British bacon" often comes not from pigs raised in this country, but from meat imported and processed in this country. That is dishonest, to say the least. If new clause 1 were accepted, it would be a major step forward.
We are to provide more labelling of the nutritional element of food, and other information for the consumer—such as labelling of the country of origin. We

must recognise also that these provisions equate with further regulations and added costs to producers, and therefore to the consumer. Many will consider the extra cost worth while, but we must recognise that we are placing added costs on our industry which will not be placed on industries in other countries from which we import food.
Food labelling is here to stay and is welcomed by many consumers. However, much can be misleading, and the information given must be accurate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden listed a range of foods and products which were not as they appeared to be. However, organic products in this country—when they are approved by the Soil Association—are recognised as being of high quality.

Mr. Hoyle: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Winterton: The often rather belligerent hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) agrees with me, no doubt because he has organic producers in his constituency. When I served on the Agriculture Committee, we undertook an inquiry into these matters. With others, I visited Blagdon farms, where Yeo Valley yoghurt is produced, and we were given samples. I hasten to add that I did not feel that I had to include them in the Register of Members' Interests. Since then, I have bought nothing other than Yeo Valley organic yoghurt. It is excellent, and we ought to be promoting it throughout the EU as something that is produced in a wholesome and—I believe—old-fashioned way.
I have always sought positively to buy British in everything, but especially in food, not least because I come from a farming and country background from way, way back. I have never, never bought French apples and I have no intention of doing so. When our apples and pears are not in season, I am more than happy to buy them from Commonwealth countries such as New Zealand or South Africa, but I am damned if I will buy those ghastly things that look perfect, but taste of nothing. That brings me to another subject.

Mr. Luff: New Labour?

Mrs. Winterton: No, something much more important than that. I am talking about British produce. We need to have British produce labelled as such, because it is the best marketing tool that we have. Sadly, many consumers buy on the basis of price rather than on the basis of quality. I always try to buy the best quality, and if necessary, I will buy less. It is essential to market our quality food. I hope that that message will go home and that we will be able further to promote the excellence of our produce.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome the Bill. New clause 1 would require that
all food products are accurately labelled with a complete list of ingredients",
but that is already done. I assume that that is the law. However, ingredients are often listed in a way that is very difficult to comprehend or even to read.
I gather from the gossip in the Chamber that if we require country of origin labelling we may run up against European Union law. I hope not. Perhaps the Minister can


tell us. Will he let us know whether we cannot compel people to label food as made in this country because we will run up against Brussels?

Mr. Rooker: I did not want to intervene, because of the time constraints, but if the hon. Gentleman will sit down I will answer him. He does not seem to want me to do that.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I was making the point that labelling food as British is important as a marketing tool. We are moving towards having fewer and fewer subsidies, and we are encouraging our farmers to market quality products that should be better known by the public, such as Southdown lamb or York ham.
I am not sure whether we can implement the requirement to include the system of production on the label, but the aims of the new clause should be studied seriously.

Mr. Rooker: I shall do my best to respond to some of the issues raised, but I shall be brief and I apologise to the House for that.
On virtually every issue about which it has been said during the past hour that the agency should do something, I can honestly say that the agency will act. I can say that because it is being done now to a greater or lesser extent within the joint food safety and standards group under existing law. However, there is always room for improvement—I would not argue about that.
6 pm
There are good reasons for my asking the House not to accept new clause 1. The key reason is that it would make matters worse than they are now. The Bill is drafted in general terms, and the powers of existing legislation are being transferred to the Food Standards Agency. If we started listing in the Bill specific duties such as food labelling but did not list, for example, food composition, food authenticity, food additives, food hygiene and chemical contaminants, it would be argued in a court that those issues were less important than food labelling because Parliament had listed food labelling in the Bill. Yet they are all equally important. What is more, they are all covered by the agency's powers. That can be said without any qualification whatever.
Naturally, some matters can be dealt with to a greater or lesser extent. The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) invited me—indeed, he almost pushed me—to intervene, but when I stood up he did not sit down. To a certain extent, we are governed by European Union laws on labelling. It is not possible for us to go off on our own and invent a labelling regime. As I said recently at Question Time, there is nothing to stop British supermarkets and food producers putting the country of origin on all their food products, so long as the labelling does not mislead the public. They do not need a law or authority from this House; they can do it. We have to ask ourselves why they do not do it more often. Perhaps they are a bit ashamed of the origin. People should assume that if a product does not say it is British, it is not British.

Some smaller supermarkets are going out of their way to label products as British or Welsh, particularly in respect of lamb, and others should be encouraged to do so.

Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No, I must cover various points, and time is limited.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned the beef labelling scheme. It is a Europe-wide scheme which is voluntary now but which will be compulsory in due course. It is governed by a quite separate set of powerful rules and the independent audit of those who use it, even down to the method of slaughter and the sex and tag number of the animal if the person chooses to sell on that basis. That is important. In due course, that kind of scheme will undoubtedly be extended to other meat areas.
I thought that the hon. Lady would not have the brass neck to mention GM foods but she did. It is worth putting on record again the fact that the Government inherited a policy not to label GM ingredients in foods. On 7 June 1997 we announced the change.

Mr. Paice: May I lay to rest the absurd criticism that the Minister keeps coming up with? The previous Government voted against introducing labelling for GM foods because, as he said, at that time there was no way of testing for them, so the law could not have been enforced. As it was not possible to test for GM ingredients, it would have been a stupid law. Yes, the technology has moved on and it is now right to do that.

Mr. Rooker: That is not the reason. The reason for the policy not to label those foods was specifically because they were not technically or nutritionally different. The previous Government's policy was to label those foods if they were technically or nutritionally different. They were following to the letter the American system of not labelling food unless it was technically or nutritionally different. Soya and maize are not technically or nutritionally different; therefore the policy was not to label them. That is why we had to pass separate rules for labelling. The previous Government approved the EC's novel food regulations so that in future any new GM food would automatically require labelling. They approved that before we came to power, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is blown out of the water. They were content for future GM foods to be labelled. That was agreed in 1996, but the regulations did not cover maize and soya—the only such foods that were being imported other than tomato paste, which was always labelled.
The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned an issue that has been reported in the press in the past few days. I went to a public meeting just like anyone else. The people from Nestle told the audience that they supplied Iceland under a commercial contract ingredients that included up to 1 per cent. GM ingredients for Iceland to sell as GM-free. I have disclosed that in the past, and I have been criticised by Iceland for doing so. Nestlé did not exactly boast about it, but it was part of the commercial contract. That was a matter of public knowledge. I was a member of an audience at a public meeting.
The hon. lady also mentioned the important issue of antibiotics. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, under amendment No. 10, the


Opposition do not want the Food Standards Agency to have anything to do with veterinary medicines. That does not square with what the hon. Lady said about antibiotics.
Production methods and welfare-friendly labels are also important. The Food Standards Agency will have the power to investigate claims on labels that products are welfare friendly. If people misleadingly label something as welfare friendly and the agency checks on the files and finds that it is not, it will have the power to go on to farms to ensure that welfare-friendly methods are used. The issues raised in the new clause are covered by the Bill.
My final point relates to imports. There has been a touch of xenophobia in some of the speeches, but I understand the concern. Many years ago, before I came to the House, I wrote a piece in Birmingham. I had gone to buy a rotor arm for my old banger in the days when we had rotor arms. I picked up a product labelled as a Lucas rotor arm in a shop—it may have been Halfords, I do not know. It was vacuum packed and all that the label said was "Printed in the UK". I thought, "I'm an engineer. You don't print a rotor arm, you make it." It turned out that it was made in the Lucas factory in Brazil.
Labels can give a false impression by putting perhaps only the country where the packaging was printed or where the last part of the process was carried out. There is no doubt that they can be misleading. More work needs to be done and more pressure needs to be put on the suppliers. As I said, there is nothing to stop suppliers insisting that the country of origin is labelled on their produce. We ought to do more to encourage our constituents to demand that. Legislation is not necessarily required to make it effective.
The hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned imports. We do not always know what is going on and there will not be time to discuss all the amendments, but we are able to turn back imports or check them if there is a problem because they are labelled and we can take them out of the food chain if necessary. We recently picked up some problems with imports of beef carcases from the Republic of Ireland, which had to be labelled. Specified risk materials are found in imports. I understand that one lot was found today; so the checks are going on.
Reference was made to Belgium. We were able to check pork and poultry consignments from Belgium. They were all impounded and returned to Belgium or destroyed. An enormous amount of work is therefore being done to check these things. Labelling of country of origin or code numbers is important in that connection.
To accept the new clause would be to make it more difficult for the Food Standards Agency to deal with the issues that I have raised, where problems arise. Those issues are not written into the Bill, but the agency will deal with them. They include contamination, adulteration and food composition. It is important that we leave the agency with as much general power as possible to carry on work that is already taking place. The thrust of the demands of hon. Members who have spoken are covered in the Bill and the powers that the House is giving to the agency.

Mrs. Spelman: I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. He clearly stated, as he did in Committee, that a clear transfer of power to the agency is

taking place to enable it to take over the role of enforcing labelling rules. That is what he says the agency will be doing. However, we really did want that to be included in the Bill. We are left to fall back on the explanatory notes. I am disappointed that, after we had provided so many examples of the current inadequacy of the rules, we do not seem fully to have made the point that we did not want to transfer the power under the existing set of rules. However, given the Minister's comments, we hope that the agency will take a proactive stance in addressing some of those confusing points.
I certainly want to dispel any idea that xenophobia lay behind our desire for clear labelling of the country of origin—quite the opposite. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, we heard a good example of why the consumer might want to buy a foreign product. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred to the cachet of a foreign product; he gave as an example the contrast between Somerset and French Brie. As the two are largely indistinguishable, they would need to be labelled accurately with their country of origin in order to enable consumers to buy the foreign product if they wanted to do so. That is not xenophobia; it has a great deal to do with choice, but more important—in relation to what lies at the heart of the Bill—it would protect food safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred to organic standards. If the Government are unwilling to accept the new clause, we want to press the Minister and—through him—the new agency to consider the problem posed by the fact that organic standards are not common throughout the European Union. The standard set by the Soil Association in this country is much higher. Indeed, that is why my hon. Friend has such confidence in the organic products that she buys. However, her point illustrates the weakness of the rules that the Food Standards Agency will inherit. We should like the agency to do something about that.
Somewhat reluctantly, we take the Minister at his word. He assures us that all the powers for the enforcement of food labelling will be transferred lock, stock and barrel. We urge him to ensure that the Food Standards Agency considers thoroughly the inadequacy of the set of rules with which it will have to work, but, based on what we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS IN WALES

'(1) This section applies if the National Assembly for Wales passes a resolution expressing the view that the functions of the Agency ought not to be exercisable in or as regards Wales.

(2) The National Assembly for Wales shall—

(a) consider the matters referred to in this Act, and
(b) within three months of a resolution of the sort referred to in subsection (1) above, make provision for the functions of the Agency provided for in this Act to be carried out in ways other than those provided for in this Act.'—[Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 24, page 13, line 10, at end insert—
'(7A) If the Agency fails to comply with directions under subsection (1) in a case where the power under subsection (1) has been exercised by the National Assembly for Wales, the National Assembly for Wales may—

(a) remove from office the member of the Agency appointed by it, and
(b) remove from office any members of the advisory committee for Wales,
and until new appointments are made, may itself make provision for the carrying out of the Agency's functions.'.
No. 13, in clause 33, page 17, line 43, at end insert
'; or—
(C) the National Assembly for Wales passes a resolution expressing the view that the functions of the Agency ought not to be any longer exercisable in or as regards Wales.'.
No. 14, in page 18, line 5, at end insert—
'(aa) modifying this or any other Act as She considers necessary or expedient in consequence of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales of the sort referred to in subsection (1)(c) above;'.
No. 35, in schedule 4, page 36, line 5, at end insert—'Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)—
. In Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 there shall be inserted—
Food Standards Agency.
Food Standards Agency advisory committee for Wales.".'

Mr. Jones: It is a pleasure to speak to the new clause and the amendments. The spirit of these matters was discussed in the National Assembly for Wales when the Health and Social Services Committee considered whether there should be a separate agency for Wales. Clause 33 in particular makes one realise that the House is already paving the way, under the devolved provisions, for the possibility of separate agencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland, whereas no such provision is being made for Wales. That is a mistake. If Wales wants to pursue separate policies on food standards and wants the same flexibility as Scotland and Northern Ireland, it should have that opportunity.
I have considered the advice given to the Committee of the National Assembly on why a separate agency might not be appropriate for Wales. I confess that I do not find it very convincing. For example, it says that a separate agency for Wales would require separate scientific advice. I do not see why that should be so. If scientific advice is available to the agency in England, it could be provided to an agency in Wales.
6.15 pm
For example, the Welsh Assembly received scientific advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee when we conducted our inquiry into beef on the bone. It was not necessary for the Welsh Assembly to have separate scientific advice. It was perfectly proper for it to accept SEAC's advice on that occasion, so I see no reason why the situation should be different with the Food Standards Agency. The Bill should allow the Welsh Assembly to have the same flexibility as Scotland and

Northern Ireland in developing policies and, in the interests of consistency, we should have similar provisions.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 should be viewed in the context of our argument in support of new clause 3. I therefore move quickly to amendment No. 17. It would give the Assembly the power to remove the agency member for Wales who is appointed by the Assembly under clause 2, and any member of the advisory committee for Wales. That would be a useful addition to the powers conferred on the Welsh Assembly by this legislation. Although I hope that we will never have to call for the removal of appointees, it is important to ensure that the Welsh Assembly has that sanction.
In the interests of brevity, I shall move on to amendment No. 35. As the House will know, the schedule to the Government of Wales Act 1998 lists several bodies that the Assembly can call to give advice to it and evidence to its Sub-Committees. The Welsh Assembly has been working for only a matter of weeks, but I think that subject Committees are an excellent concept. The Committees are doing excellent work and providing good information to the people of Wales. I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment because I think that the Food Standards Agency should be called to give evidence to the appropriate Sub-Committee which will want to consider a range of issues in the interests of probity.
On that basis, I hope that the Government will feel minded to accept at least some of the amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Hon. Members will want to debate several important amendments and new clauses later this evening. Therefore, I intend to deal with these amendments quickly, unless I am pressed.
I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) for the brevity with which he explained his amendments, and I shall deal rapidly with new clause 3 and speak to amendments Nos. 17, 13 and 14. The hon. Gentleman has done what I have come to expect from a member of Plaid Cymru when we consider Bills that involve Wales as well as England: he has tried to rewrite the Government of Wales Act 1998 by giving primary legislation powers to the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Quite right.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. Nevertheless, even if I were persuaded by his argument, I am sure that he will agree that this is not the right vehicle through which fundamentally to redraw the Government of Wales Act, which the people of Wales accepted in the 1997 referendum. I must therefore reject the amendments.
The intention behind amendment No. 35 is to give the National Assembly for Wales power to require attendance and production of documents by any person who is a member or a member of staff of the Food Standards Agency and its advisory committee for Wales. Having considered that amendment, I think it appropriate that the power of summons should apply to the agency and the advisory committee. Although the agency will be a Crown body, there are no close parallels operating in Wales. The agency will have the full range of policy


responsibilities on food safety, which is a devolved area, and it is appropriate that the Assembly should be able to summon agency members, staff and the advisory committee when it deems necessary. We are, therefore, minded to accept that amendment.
The other amendments, however are not appropriate because they require primary legislation powers. The National Assembly for Wales will have important secondary legislation powers to determine regulations governing food safety in Wales. As the hon. Gentleman will know, those powers allow the Assembly to determine policy on matters such as beef on the bone, the licensing of butchers' shops, codes and practices governing how local authorities enforce food laws, infant food regulations, food additive regulations and food labelling regulations. It is not appropriate to extend those powers to primary legislation within the Bill.

Mr. Robert Walter: I was a member of the Special Select Committee that considered the Bill, but I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I shall dispel a myth that has pervaded the debates on this Bill. Rather than analysing the Bill clause by clause, the Select Committee considered its general provisions. We did so in a short time, and with some confusion of evidence, because those who were presenting evidence were not sure whether they were doing so to us, as a Select Committee of the House, or to the Government.
The Select Committee considered the subject of this new clause and amendments, the consequences of devolution and the problems of a UK-wide agency that would be answerable to four different independent bodies: the Department of Health, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly.
There is today a supreme irony in the amendments moved on behalf of Plaid Cymru by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) because they undermine the spirit of the devolved Welsh Assembly, which does not, as the Minister stated, have primary legislative functions. They would also take Wales out of the Food Standards Bill altogether, or, as I suspect the hon. Member for Ynys Môn desires, create a separate Welsh food standards agency.
The irony of that is demonstrated on the front page of today's Western Mail, which carries the headline, "Fury as beef on the bone ban stays", following the announcement yesterday at a press conference in Cardiff of what had been the worst-kept secret in Welsh agriculture for the past week. Meeting in private last week, the Agriculture Committee of the National Assembly for Wales voted to forgo its existing powers in an important area of food standards—the beef-on-the-bone ban. Members of that Committee had earlier said that they would vote to lift the ban, but have now changed their minds.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am not a spokesperson for the National Assembly for Wales, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it did not vote to forgo its powers; it simply decided not to lift the beef on the bone ban now. The purpose of devolution was to allow the devolved powers to decide for themselves. The fact that Assembly Members—in their wisdom, I believe—decided that they would not, for the time being, take a decision that was

different from this body's decision does not remove the fact that they were allowed to do so, and they decided not to.

Mr. Walter: In his interpretation—that Assembly Members were not forgoing their powers but deciding not to do something—the Minister is playing with semantics.
The key point that I wanted to make is that the three Opposition parties in Wales—the Conservatives, the Liberals and Plaid Cymru—had campaigned strongly for an early and unilateral lifting of the ban. That was a pre-election pledge of all three parties. Today's Western Mail article points out that
It emerged that those on the agriculture committee who changed their minds were largely Plaid Cymru members"—
a stance which, to some extent, makes nonsense of the amendments in the name of the four Plaid Cymru Members of this House.
If the ban had been lifted, it would have made nonsense of the Government's desire, to which I believe the Minister alluded just now, for a United Kingdom Food Standards Agency with UK-wide powers and UK-wide implementation—a concept which the Opposition support.
I should like to examine for a moment the nonsense of the amendments. I shall ignore amendment No. 35, which the Minister has said he is prepared to accept, but I shall focus on new clause 3 and amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which would effectively give the Welsh Assembly the power to opt out, if it so desires, of the new food standards regime completely, or to set up its own regime, with a Welsh food standards agency.
The Minister mentioned the process that took place in the National Assembly for Wales. The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly considered that matter on 23 June 1999.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I shall not pass comment on the hon. Gentleman's mischievous earlier remarks; I may refer to them in passing when I reply to the Minister's speech. However, will the hon. Gentleman read the Bill, and will he make specific comments about Wales? Clause 33(1)(a) says that the Scottish Parliament can pass
an Act providing for any functions of the Agency to be no longer exercisable in or as regards Scotland".
What is the difference?

Mr. Walter: The difference is that the Scottish Parliament was set up with primary legislative powers but the Welsh Assembly was not. The Welsh Assembly was never envisaged as such and, in the referendum on setting up the Welsh Assembly, there was never any suggestion that the Assembly would have those powers. They are not in the Government of Wales Act 1998. The amendments would move us on a ratchet or two, by giving the Welsh Assembly those powers. That was never the intention of the House or of the people of Wales.
The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly was advised to support the proposal in the Bill
that the Food Standards Agency should be a UK-wide body, advising and reporting to the Assembly in relation to Wales, and carrying out the food safety and standards functions currently discharged by Assembly staff as well as the new UK functions proposed in the Bill.


To ensure that the Welsh dimension is appropriately covered, the arrangements for the Food Standards Agency's operations in respect of Wales will include a Welsh Executive; an advisory committee for Wales; and sole appointment by the Assembly of a board member with special responsibility for Wales.
There has been general support in Wales for the principle of a UK agency. That approach was recommended by the Government on the grounds of consistency and cost. As food safety and standards are tightly constrained by the European Union legislative framework, there seems to be little scope for variation in secondary legislation.
6.30 pm
I shall refer to two items contained in the recommendations to the Health and Social Services Committee on 23 June, which are important to the new clause and the amendments. The committee was told that food safety
is an issue of great public concern.
We would not object to that. The document continues:
The need for consistency of policy and advice to the public is therefore a key consideration. Were there to be a separate Agency for Wales, it would need access to separate scientific advice from that which will be provided by existing committees to the Agency in England. There would therefore be a real danger of conflicting advice being made available, which would cause public confusion. In addition, since the scientific advisory committees which currently advise the Government are made up of the highest calibre independent scientists, it would be difficult to find sufficient independent scientists of high enough standing to advise a separate Welsh Agency.
That was the first part of the recommendation to the National Assembly. The separate point is that the cost
of establishing a completely separate Agency in Wales would be far greater than the Welsh share of current costs. This additional cost would have to be met from within the Assembly's current budget at the expense of other priorities. Historically the Welsh Office has relied on expertise in the Department of Health and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in many areas. For example, the Welsh Office has no trading standards advisers. It will be far more cost-effective for the Welsh Executive to use the central services provided by the Agency's headquarters, for example for financial services and I.T. support, than to seek to duplicate these functions in a separate Agency. The Bill provides for arrangements which will make the Agency properly accountable to the Assembly; will ensure that the Agency takes account of Welsh issues in advising the Assembly on legislation and in advising the public; and will allow the Assembly to monitor the Agency's performance and propose changes to its priorities and functions.
That was the evidence that the Health and Social Services Committee considered. I have read through the committee's minutes and I will refer to a couple of items. It is stated in the minutes that
it is also important for Wales to maintain access to the best scientific advice…A separate Welsh Agency would lead to an unnecessary duplication of work.
That is repeated by the members of the committee.
The minutes continue:
The costs of setting up a separate Welsh Agency were estimated"—
this was during the meeting on 23 June—
to be approximately £6 million, whilst funding a Welsh Executive would require less than £1 million.
Therefore, ensuring that Wales maintains a strong and distinctive voice within the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency is somewhat more important than

having a separate Welsh food standards agency, which would be constrained both in its scientific advice and its financial resources. The minutes record that
the Committee accepted the proposal for a UK Food Standards Agency.
The Minister of State may recall our exchanges in the Select Committee on green top milk, which is banned in Scotland but freely available in England and Wales. We also discussed the beef-on-the-bone ban, even before the Bill was introduced. As has been said, the Welsh Assembly could have lifted that ban this week. Consumers in Chester, Hereford or Bristol could have made the short trip over the border and bought products banned in their local shops. Smuggling would have taken on new connotations in a UK context.
It is possible, even without the amendments, that the FSA could recommend lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban. That advice could be accepted by the Welsh Assembly but rejected by the Department of Health. However, the consequences of the amendments go beyond those deficiencies of the Bill. The amendments drive a coach and horses through the concept of a UK-wide Food Standards Agency. Separate arrangements for Wales would lead to confusion among consumers. A separate Welsh food standards agency would do a great disservice to the Welsh consumer and to the Welsh taxpayer.
The cost, as we know, would be at least £6 million, just to create the separate administrative structure. I would be interested in any advice that the Minister could give about the cost of a separate meat hygiene service for Wales, if that were bolted on to a Welsh food standards agency.
A more important objection to the amendments must be on the grounds of safety and science. The original arguments for creating the agency were that it would be able to call on the best scientific advice available, and would have the resources to pay for it. Separate scientific advice available to a smaller, less-well-resourced Welsh food standards agency could only be inferior.
I heard the comment of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that a separate agency could receive the same advice but, if it came to different conclusions, the Welsh consumer might suffer. Welsh consumers deserve the same superior scientific advice as their English and Scots cousins enjoy.
The fundamental objection to the amendments is constitutional. They are a clear attempt by the Welsh nationalists to move the goalposts in respect of the powers of the Welsh Assembly. The amendments would enable the Welsh Assembly to pass primary legislation. That was never the Government's intention in the Government of Wales Act 1998, and nor was it the will of the Welsh people in the referendum. It would certainly have been opposed by Conservative Members. On those grounds alone, regardless of the scientific and the cost grounds, we have no reason to support the amendments.

Dr. Brand: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). I now understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). We have just heard a trainee colonial governor's announcement of what should happen in one of our dependencies. [Interruption.] It is well known that I represent an offshore dependency.
We welcome the ministerial decision on amendment No. 35. There might have been less support in Wales for the amendments moved by the hon. Member for


Ynys Môn if the Government had been less opaque about the functioning and reporting of concordats. I hope that we will have an assurance from the Government that the Welsh Assembly will be an active participant in the drawing up of concordats, and that Assembly Members will be able to discuss them openly and publicly.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The speech of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made the case for devolution better than any argument that I have ever heard. It was paternalistic and arrogant, and the hon. Gentleman failed to understand the concept of devolution. It is little wonder that his party's vote collapsed in Wales during the recent elections to the National Assembly. On that performance, it will never rise again.
All that we seek to achieve through the amendments is to enable Wales to be treated in the same way as Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would have listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks much more carefully if he had read the National Assembly's report on beef on the bone. He quoted selectively from the Western Mail, but he failed to tell the House that, in that same report, is a quote from the Conservative Member of the Committee, saying in terms that he accepted that the issue of lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban was not as simple as he had originally thought.
The National Assembly has decided not to abrogate its responsibility but to listen to the medical advice. When that becomes available in August, we shall reconsider the matter. The hon. Gentleman quotes extensively from some Assembly documents to support his case, but simply ignores others.
Having put on the record the correct position with regard to the National Assembly, I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that, on the basis that he accepts amendment No. 35 and that a quarter of a loaf is better than no loaf at all, I shall not press the three amendments that he was unable to accept, and that I also beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

DEVELOPMENT OF FOOD POLICY AND PROVISION OF ADVICE, ETC. TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 19, at end insert—
'(1B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Agency has the function of—
(a) investigating and monitoring the effect on food safety of—

(i) animal husbandry systems and practices with inadequate standards of animal health and welfare;
(ii) the routine use of antibiotics on farm animals for growth promotion or prophylactic purposes; and
(iii) slaughterhouse systems and practices with inadequate standards of hygiene and animal welfare; and

(b) developing policies relating to any matters identified during the investigation and monitoring mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) which the Agency considers have a significant effect on food safety.'.
The amendment would include among the agency's functions a duty to examine the effects on human health of farming systems with low standards of animal health

and welfare. It extends the agency's remit in three areas, each of which has implications for human health—first, the conditions in which animals raised for their meat are reared; secondly, the routine use of antibiotics for growth or the suppression of disease, and, thirdly, conditions in slaughterhouses. I shall deal with each in turn.
I make it clear at the outset that I do not wish to see the principal responsibility for the welfare of farm animals taken away from the animal welfare division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which, by and large, does a fine job. I simply argue that the Food Standards Agency needs to be able to address all the elements that jeopardise food safety, and those clearly include poor animal welfare.
I make it clear, too, that I do not suggest that intensive animal husbandry is responsible for all or even most of the threats to food safety. Obviously, there are many other factors, including the way in which food is stored and prepared in the catering industry and at home. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the growth of industrial farming has coincided with a dramatic increase in food poisoning—by more than 450 per cent. during the past 15 years. No doubt, there are many explanations for that, but I should be surprised if that was not in some way connected with the appalling conditions in which so many farm animals are reared.
Most pigs, chickens and turkeys are intensively farmed. Broilers—chickens reared for their meat—are kept for their entire lives in huge windowless sheds, which are so overcrowded that, as the birds grow, the floor is scarcely visible. The birds are kept on litter, usually wood shavings, which is often never changed throughout their short miserable lives. Those birds often literally live in their own excrement. It is hardly surprising that bacteria flourish in such conditions.
Three years ago, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food concluded:
Poultry meat continues to be a significant route for the transmission of salmonella and campylobacter into industrial, domestic and catering environments.
The committee drew attention to a 1994 survey by the Public Health Laboratory Service, which found that 41 per cent. of UK-produced frozen chickens and one third of chilled chickens were infected with salmonella. Those figures may be coming down, but they are far too high. Supermarkets find that around 10 per cent. of the 720 million chickens slaughtered each year are infected—that is, 72 million chickens infected each year.
A 1994 European Community survey found that 44 per cent. of UK-produced chickens are infected with campylobacter. I believe that those remarkably high levels stem in part from unhealthy farming and slaughter practices. My amendment would give the agency power to address that issue.
6.45 pm
The second part of my amendment deals with the routine use of antibiotics artificially to suppress the diseases caused by intensive animal husbandry. That must also have implications for human health. For many factory farmers, antibiotics have become a substitute for hygiene and good practice and they are also used to promote growth. Quite apart from the moral issues involved, that gross misuse of drugs is bound to have implications


for human health. I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that one inevitable consequence of that will be the encouragement of the growth of bacteria that are resistant not only to antibiotics used on animals, but to those used by humans. In my view, human and animal welfare are inextricably linked.
When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on Second Reading, he told me that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters would be within the remit of the agency. My amendment makes that explicit and goes a little further: it would enable the agency to address the misuse of antibiotics for veterinary purposes—that is, as a substitute for humane conditions.
Finally, my amendment would give the agency power to take an interest in conditions in slaughterhouses, where they are relevant to human health. Modern abattoirs are capable of slaughtering as many as 300 pigs or 8,000 chickens an hour. At that rate, even with the best will in the world—that is not always present—it will be nigh on impossible to safeguard either the welfare of animals or the hygiene of the meat. I shall leave to one side for the purpose of this debate the unspeakable cruelty to which industrial killing on such a scale gives rise and focus instead solely on the implications for human health.
The 1996 report of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food identified slaughterhouses as a significant contributor to the high levels of salmonella and campylobacter found in poultrymeat. The Committee said:
Slaughter and processing operations give rise to a very wide range of practices which can have a serious effect on the spread of microbiological contamination".
My amendment would bring slaughterhouses within the remit of the agency. I appreciate that it may be argued that there are other agencies with responsibility for the regulation of factory farming and slaughterhouses. I wish them well in their work and I have no desire to diminish their powers. In the interests of joined-up government, which we are all in favour of these days, the Food Standards Agency will no doubt want to work closely with them in any case, but I do not see why slaughterhouses, where relevant, should not fall within the remit of the agency. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Paice: I want to put on record a few of the Opposition's thoughts on the amendment. We sympathise very much with a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) about the objective of ensuring that our food is humanely and hygienically reared and hygienically slaughtered and processed. However, we have some real doubts about some of those points and the way in which the amendment could operate.
First, the word "inadequate" appears twice in the amendment. I suggest that what is and is not inadequate welfare is a highly subjective matter, and that word in itself would cause major legal problems of interpretation. Secondly, I should put it on record that I think it is very unwise to suggest or imply that different systems of animal welfare automatically bring with them different hygiene and food safety issues. There will not necessarily be such a conjunction. The example of eggs was mentioned in Committee and there is evidence that eggs

produced in well-managed battery cages are probably more hygienic and less likely to carry salmonella than free-range eggs. The difference is not the system of welfare and of keeping animals, but the standard of husbandry, the management and the human aspect. The point is not whether chickens, pigs or whatever are kept in a particular system, but whether they are managed effectively.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to broilers kept in their own excrement. Such an emotive statement belies the truth entirely. Yes, they are kept on wood shavings, but, as he said, they are there only for a short period and it is not necessary to replace them. Indeed, it would be physically impossible to replace them without huge welfare implications—moving the birds off the shavings so that new ones could be put in would have huge welfare implications.
To suggest that systems of welfare carry different food safety implications is to ignore the reality. Good farmers will produce safe food in any conditions. Bad farmers—we have to admit that there are some examples—will produce unsafe food whatever the conditions, including free range; the sort of conditions that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South probably espouses. It is the quality of the management that matters.

Dr. Brand: Is not the purpose of the Food Standards Agency to establish whether there is a link between animal welfare, the methods of rearing animals and producing food and food safety? We can all make assumptions from different perspectives in the animal welfare sector, but we need scientific evidence, such as that quoted by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to ensure that we are protecting the public.

Mr. Paice: I am putting forward reasons why the Government would be ill advised to accept the amendment. We do not support it, although it is not out of lack of sympathy. If he looks at the Bill in its entirety, the hon. Gentleman will find that there is plenty of scope for the agency to examine the issues to which he refers. My point is that implicit in the amendment is the suggestion that different animal welfare systems automatically carry with them different food safety implications. I reject that contention.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that changes in agricultural practices since the war are responsible for increased food poisoning, but the greatest changes have taken place in methods of food storage and preparation, in the types of food available and in cooking methods—microwaves and all the other food technology—plus a changing population eating on the hoof and not cooking food in the old-fashioned way, when everything was roasted or boiled to extinction.

Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend makes the point that I was going to make in my next sentence. In the past two or three decades, we have moved from the situation where the housewife—usually the person in the house, although I shall try to avoid sexism—purchases the raw materials and prepares a cooked meal. Nowadays, that is much less often the case. Therefore, a raft of changes could have brought about hygiene problems.

Mr. Mullin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that I acknowledged that point, and said that


animal welfare systems were just one of the factors. I did not claim even that they were the greatest factor. I accept his argument.

Mr. Paice: I accept that.
The positive side of the amendment, which does not outweigh the negative side—which is why we cannot support it—is that it would allow the Food Standards Agency to emphasise what the Opposition contend are already high welfare standards in this country. There will always be room for improvement. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South would probably disagree about aspects of that improvement, and no one would pretend that there is not always room for some change. However, the Minister of State rightly praised our standards of welfare. This country has already taken steps to outlaw veal crates, sow stalls and tethers.
We have higher welfare standards than many of the countries from which we import food. Ministers have rightly spoken about the welfare premium. However, that is made at the retail end; it is important that it is reflected in the extra costs incurred by producers. For example, our pig producers, who produce pigs without using stalls or tethers because those are illegal here, must compete with producers of pigmeat produced in countries that use those systems.
In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred to the importance of ensuring that labelling included the system of production and the country of origin, so that consumers could bear those in mind in making a choice. If a housewife wants to buy foreign pigmeat, she should be able to do so in the full knowledge that it might not have been reared to the standards which we expect to be used in this country.

Mr. Gill: I happen to know that, yesterday, my hon. Friend met the chairman of Assured British Meats. Does he agree that many of the points that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made are covered by the scheme of policing, controlling and monitoring all the processes in the production of British meat, which is partly funded from public money? Does not that answer many of the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman made?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend, with his immense knowledge of the meat industry, is entirely right. Assured British Meat, set up and partly funded from public money, is doing a fantastic job in ensuring that our meat is produced to the highest standards, and that that is used as a marketing tool so that the public are aware of it.
We sympathise with the objective of ensuring that those matters are taken into account—I have not mentioned slaughterhouses as I am sure that the Minister will pick that point up—but we have serious doubts about the phrasing of the amendment. We shall therefore not support it, should it be pushed to a vote.

Mr. Luff: I share many of the doubts and reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about the amendment. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and I had an opportunity to discuss these issues, and I understand and respect his concerns. He may be partly

right and partly wrong about this issue, but in a sense that does not matter in terms of his proposals because the Bill fully addresses all the concerns that he has expressed.
The amendment would not extend the Bill, as he suggested in his opening remarks, but would lead to overdue specification of one aspect of the concerns and issues that the agency will address. Clauses 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 deal with the agency's functions. They deal with developing policies for food safety or other consumer interests in relation to food. Clause 7 provides advice and information to the general public. Under clause 8, the agency has the function of obtaining information on those issues. Clause 9 deals with animal feeding stuffs—which, at least in part, deals with the hon. Gentleman's concern about antibiotics. Crucially, clause 10, on the powers of the agency, says:
The Agency may, for the purpose of carrying out its function under section 8 or…9,…with a view to obtaining information about…any aspect of the production or supply of food or food sources",
seek information, including observations about
agricultural premises, agricultural businesses or agricultural activities".
The Bill therefore contains a comprehensive range of provisions, which fully deal with the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Whether his concerns are legitimate or not is irrelevant. The agency has those powers.
I repeat the concern expressed by the Minister about new clause 1. He said that to accept new clause 1 would be to distort the purpose of the agency. Accepting amendment No. 11 would have the same effect: it would distort the purpose of the agency by putting undue focus on specific activities, concerns and issues in the food chain, when there are so many others that should worry us.
If the hon. Member for Sunderland, South wanted to highlight one priority, it should have been that which he just mentioned in passing. It is one that he and I discussed, and which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean): the priority of hygiene in the kitchen.
7 pm
If I were asked which of all the concerns about food safety was the most important, I would say it was hygiene. To make the issues raised today by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South a priority would be to detract from what I consider to be the priority. It is clear that most instances of food poisoning occur after the food has left the farm, and after it has left the factory, and that it tends to occur in catering establishments more often than in the home. In saying that, I do not intend to excuse poor standards earlier in the food chain. It is crucial for our farmers to produce food to the highest possible standards, and there is no excuse for sloppy practices.

Dr. Gibson: One of the problems in kitchens now is that some utensils are coated with antibiotics. That is relevant to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Antibiotic resistance is being passed on to the human population. You win some, you lose some.

Mr. Luff: I do not think that we need to debate the merits of the issue. I have a good deal of sympathy with


what the hon. Gentleman has said: issues do arise from antibiotic resistance. I think that most of them arise from overuse of antibiotics in human medicine rather than animal medicine, but that is not to deny that antibiotics in animal medicines and practices pose a problem. My Select Committee expressed concern—albeit perhaps a little too simply—in its report on food safety, which was published more than a year ago.
I share the doubts expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about the definition of "inadequate". The definition itself is inadequate. Two sub—paragraphs in amendment No. 11 use that word, referring to
inadequate standards of animal health and welfare
and
inadequate standards of hygiene and animal welfare".
I agree with my hon. Friend that "inadequate" is a very subjective term, and I think that that in itself is a good reason for us to doubt the merits of the amendment.
I am also worried about the highlighting of "slaughterhouse systems and practices". I respect the concerns that were in the mind of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when he tabled the amendment, and I do not know the views of other Conservative Members, but I believe that, if anything, slaughterhouses are already over-regulated. Some of the most animal welfare friendly slaughterhouses in Worcestershire have been forced to close as a result of over-regulation, and I think that the Government are doing a tremendous job in monitoring the standards of the abattoirs that remain. The hygiene assessment score system is working extremely well, and I think that it deserves our support.
The requirement that the amendment imposes on slaughterhouse systems suggests the existence of a worry that the House ought not to have. The Minister of State should be congratulated on what he is doing to drive up standards, but that has already been at some cost. Some of the best slaughterhouses have already gone, and those that remain are paying a heavy price for the privilege of this system of regulation.
The amendment might have a particularly heavy impact on domestic production, and no corresponding impact on imported products. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made that point. Many of our greatest concerns are not about British systems, which are generally the best in the world, but about foreign systems, which clearly are not. My hon. Friend rightly spoke at length about pigs. That is a classic example of our standards being the highest in the world, but I fear that the amendment could send a signal to the contrary.
I am also worried about the fact that the amendment deals only with livestock. Many food poisoning issues have nothing whatever to do with livestock; they relate to a range of other foodstuffs. I do not think that it is helpful to highlight livestock as being a particular problem.
It is understandable that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South should feel as he does about intensive farming, but disease control is often easier in intensive farming systems than in non-intensive systems. The incidence of, for example, salmonella is often a great deal higher in the case of free-range chickens and free-range eggs, and—ironically—badly managed free-range chicken production is often less welfare friendly than well-managed intensive systems. That, however, is a separate issue.
The House should reject the amendment because it is unnecessary. It adds nothing to the Bill and it gives priority to the wrong set of issues. I hope that the Minister will invite the House to reject it.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I want to follow the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and echo his hope that the Minister, in his reply, will not look with favour on amendment No. 11.
The Minister will be aware that, earlier this year, the Agriculture Minister announced a programme of increased inspections which, if implemented, would have cost the abattoir industry an extra £20 million. However, I am glad to say that as a consequence of representations, he announced a complete deferral of specified risk material inspection costs for that financial year. Subsequently, we have learned that, in the past few years, there has been tremendous improvement—and rightly so—in the United Kingdom's abattoirs.
The risk that we run now is that, by imposing so many extra costs and regulations, we shall close down the abattoirs and cause something that I am sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would not like at all: longer journeys, at great expense, for animals on the way from farms to the slaughterhouse. Although it is very much better to have those facilities close to farms, in my own area, for example, we have only two small abattoirs left.
The head of the farm animals department of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said that the originally proposed additional costs represented a serious economic threat, and that there was no doubt that the current proposals would result in the closure of some small abattoirs. We therefore believe that the extra burdens proposed in amendment No. 11 would be counterproductive. If we are to maintain standards and have the farming communities on our side, and in the light of action already taken, we must be very careful to avoid imposing further burdens that will have a counterproductive effect.

Mr. Andrew George: In supporting the purpose of amendment No. 11, I should like also to draw attention to the significance of small businesses and low-throughput abattoirs in meeting high animal welfare standards.
If we had had sufficient time, amendment No. 11 could and should have been debated in relation to amendment No. 32—which I had hoped we would be able to debate. However, as we are now entering the third hour of a three-hour debate, but have reached only the third group of amendments, it is becoming clear that we shall not reach the ninth group, which deals with the fact that—for the reasons already given by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—small businesses and low-throughput abattoirs meet very high animal welfare standards. I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would accept that, because of shorter travel times and a quieter and less stressful environment inside the abattoirs themselves, low-throughput abattoirs meet high animal welfare standards.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) correctly said, on any objective assessment, inspection levels at small, low-throughput abattoirs are


excessively high. Just last week, for example, one small abattoir in my constituency complained that it had four inspectors watching one person work. The week before, the ratio was three inspectors to two workers. Such an inspection level, and the charges consequently imposed, is a burden on small businesses.
An important aspect of the Bill is its provision for both high animal welfare standards and protecting the interests of small businesses. As I said, I had hoped that, were it not for the antics largely of Conservative Members, we would have an opportunity to consider fully all of the amendments tabled on Report, so that we might be able to consider the very deep and serious concerns of small businesses about the Food Standards Agency's impact on them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak to a specific amendment and then lament the fact that he cannot go on to further amendments.

Mr. George: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will understand the frustrations felt by Liberal Democrats at the lack of progress.
Having expressed that frustration, I wish to say to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that there is a crucial link between the importance of meeting high animal welfare standards and protecting the interests of small businesses. It not just a question of low-throughput abattoirs. I hope that the Minister will take account of the impact of the Food Standards Agency on small businesses, because small producers, processors and retailers need advice and help, as well as a recognition that they do not want disproportionate charges laid upon them. Such charges could put them out of business and result in lower animal welfare standards all round and a considerable diminution in the fabric of rural life, severely damaging the economy of rural areas.

Mr. Hancock: The House is well aware of my hon. Friend's championing of the small business man, and of business generally. However, surely he is not suggesting that the Minister should look sympathetically at proposals which would in any way lower standards of animal welfare, as well as those standards that the public would require from small businesses to remain confident that they were supplying a product which was good enough for them to eat and for their families to enjoy.

Mr. George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I want to emphasise, as I have done before, that it is not a question of lowering standards for small, low-throughput producers: it is quite the opposite—small producers usually meet high standards of hygiene. We must take into account the effect of the operation of the agency on small businesses; otherwise it will damage the rural economy and the rural way of life, and jobs will be lost. Through that, the quality of animal welfare will be reduced.

Mr. Rooker: I welcome the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), in that it has provided us with this debate. I recall my hon. Friend's contribution at Second Reading, and he has referred to an aspect of the Bill that is in the shadows and does not have as high a profile as some other

issues. Nevertheless, it is an important matter. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend that the thrust of the issues that he has raised will be taken on board in the Bill.
The Bill extends the scope of the Food Safety Act 1990 to cover production of food sources. That means that the regulation-making powers of the 1990 Act could, if necessary—for food safety reasons—be used in relation to husbandry matters. There is no question about that. The lead role in the use of antibiotic growth-promoters in farm animals will continue to fall to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, an agency of MAFF. However, the Food Standards Agency will have an effective veto on the regulation of veterinary medicines. A member or placeperson of the agency will be on the Veterinary Products Committee, which gives independent scientific advice to the Government. The agency will be involved closely in any matters concerned with antibiotic resistance, which is clearly a public health matter and goes beyond my Department.
I understand the issues touched on in relation to slaughterhouses. Hon. Members know that, because of the time allocation, they have used up too much time on that subject, and they cannot debate the Meat Hygiene Service.

Mr. Paice: There is still time.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman does not know when I am going to sit down.
7.15 pm
Legitimate points have been made and I understand the frustrations. I want to make it abundantly clear that the Food Standards Agency will have direct and specific responsibility for both policy and enforcement in all abattoirs. The Meat Hygiene Service will be part of the agency and accountable to it. There will be separate arrangements for auditing, which we discussed in Committee but will not have the chance to debate today.
The hygiene and animal welfare rules for slaughterhouses are a direct responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. There is no question whatever about that. That is important because the meat industry is big business. We slaughtered 10,000 cattle today for food. We did the same yesterday and we will do the same tomorrow. There are huge factory abattoirs and small abattoirs where slaughtering may occur only one day a week.
We slaughtered 2 million broiler chickens today; we did it yesterday, and we will do it tomorrow. The hygiene conditions must be tightly controlled and I make no apology for the actions that we have taken in the past two years to drive up standards in the meat industry. I made my own modest contribution by going through a small part of the modules of the Meat Training Council. I got nowhere near slaughtering, of course, but I wanted to show that we are mustard keen on better and more training for everyone throughout the industry. I did not see why a Minister should be kept out of that if I could do something to contribute.

Mr. Gill: As president of the Meat Training Council, I want to tell the House that we are all in this together. We all want to raise standards and improve training,


hygiene and efficiency in the industry. We are most grateful to the Minister for having submitted himself to the course that he underwent.

Dr. Gibson: The running dogs of the pig industry.

Mr. Rooker: No, no. Hang on. In the days when we had them, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was my pair, so leave him alone.
The Food Standards Agency will be able to go anywhere in the food chain—there are no no-go areas in the food production system—and it will interfere or regulate to a greater or lesser extent at different parts of that chain, hardly touching some and getting actively involved in others. If there are arguments about the quality of welfare-friendly meat and mis-labelling, it will certainly have the powers to get that sorted out.
I have been to nine abattoirs—I visited one pig abattoir with the hon. Member for Ludlow—to see matters at first hand. Welfare conditions at slaughter are crucial, not only because of our respect for animals but because meat from happy animals tastes better. A happy pig is a tasty pig. There are chemical changes in animals slaughtered in stressful conditions. That is a plain fact. We must treat such issues extremely seriously.
The amendment is not necessary. The wholly legitimate issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South are covered in the Bill, as the agency will have powers throughout the food chain and in relation to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The Meat Hygiene Service does not currently set its own policy—the policy is agreed between the Department of Health and my Ministry in the joint food safety and standards group—but the Food Standards Agency will take that role and will be able to deal with clean cattle policy and hygiene rules at slaughtering. So these matters are central to the Bill; they are not outwith it.
Salmonella was mentioned. In the coming weeks and months we shall be discussing performance targets for the agency—how we can check whether it is doing the job that the House intends it to do. One such measure would not be simply to reduce food poisoning because we do not know its cause. It is multifaceted, so difficult to set as a performance target. However, the eradication of salmonella and campylobacter in the flock could be looked at over a period of years because there are techniques known to do that. One factor in the assessment of the agency's success could be just that. If those bacteria can be eliminated at the beginning of the chain, there are less likely to be problems caused by people handling food incorrectly in the home or the retail and catering trades.
The agency will be actively involved in animal husbandry and welfare. I hope that I have said enough to give my hon. Friend the encouragement and comfort he needs. I thank him for raising these issues and hope that he will not press his amendment.

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the positive tone of his reply. I acknowledge the good work of his Department in raising farm animal welfare standards. Much more progress must be made to eliminate the worst excesses of factory farming, about which we have been complacent for far too long. I appreciate that we can move only at the speed at which we can convince our EC partners to move, but I recognise that the Government are doing their best in this area.
We have had a useful little debate. The Bill should not pass without some reference to the welfare of the millions of farm animals that are slaughtered every week. It is an issue of great concern to our constituents and to many of us on both sides of the House.
To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), I am a little nervous when I hear people say that we have the best standards in the world. Over the years, I have heard that applied to our police force, our judges and, with rather more accuracy, to our armed forces—indeed, to a whole range of our institutions. It smacks slightly of complacency, if he will forgive my saying so, and we should never be complacent.
I acknowledge the points made by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) about the need for local abattoirs to be properly regulated to prevent stressful lengthy journeys to slaughter. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances and clarifications. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 25, at end insert—
'(4) Any authority making such a request shall immediately publish its reasons for so doing.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in clause 21, page 10, line 43, at end insert—
'(4) The Agency shall make a report to Parliament on the exercise of its powers under this section in each calendar year.'.

Mrs. Spelman: It is my pleasure to speak to these amendments. I intend to be as brief as possible in the interests of reaching some of the meatier subjects, if the House will forgive the pun, further down the amendment paper in the restricted time available.
The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to add a duty to any authority which makes a request to the agency to exercise its powers. The principal reason behind it goes back to one of the core themes of many of our amendments, which is to preserve the independence and ensure the transparency of the agency.
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has been present throughout much of the debate and who has been a watchdog for this whole question of independence and transparency for the agency. At many points in the Standing Committee Hansard he pointed out the need to try at all costs to preserve the independence of the agency. That is why we believe that it is imperative that when a request is made for the agency to exercise its powers, the reasons should be stated immediately. In that way, consumers, producers and retailers will be able to see the open working of the agency. We feel strongly that if there is any delay in giving the reasons, or if the reasons are not given, for requesting the agency to exercise its power, its independence will be undermined.
On other clauses, we have called for the reasons for the exercise of power to be clearly stated. For example, in clause 11 the power of entry to premises comes without the agency's having to state the reasons for going in. We understood the reason for the random visiting by foods standards officers and why the reasons could not be stated


in that instance, but we believe that it is imperative that the reasons are published immediately where another authority—a Minister, a Department or a devolved authority—makes a request.
We were pleased that amendment No. 12 was selected on Report because it deals with the huge powers contained in clause 21. We christened clause 21 the Martini clause. Anyone familiar with the advertising will know that the slogan for Martini was "Any time, any place, anywhere". We have some concern that the agency has been granted sweeping powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has wisely spotted the need to introduce some constraints and has succeeded in having the amendment selected. That gives us another chance to restrain the huge powers in clause 21. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has expressed to me its concern that no clear explanation of clause 21 was given in Committee. Perhaps we may hear from the Minister that some restraining powers will be imposed in connection with clause 21 that would give us some comfort.
Amendment No. 12 would require the agency to make a report to Parliament on the exercise of its powers in each calendar year as part of its annual report. If it were accepted, it would bring greater accountability to the otherwise sweeping powers contained in the clause.

Mr. Gill: Amendment No. 12, which is tabled in my name, would amend clause 21, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has just referred as the Martini clause. The Minister of State spoke earlier about the quality of the legislation that had gone through the House. He went so far as to say that some legislation that had reached the statute book was abysmal. I am anxious that we do not put on the statute book legislation that could be described as abysmal. We are all concerned about the amount of legislation that is reaching the statute book and, as a consequence, the amount of regulation to which business in this country is subject. We all want less regulation.
We need to deal with the problem. The problem is that the Bill is another enabling Bill, despite all its good features. Whenever we put a Bill that can be described as enabling on the statute book, we open the floodgates of regulation from successive Ministers and Departments. Although the Bill is generally accepted to be good in many ways, it is yet another enabling measure, which will give future Ministers—indeed the present Minister—wide powers. Incidentally, I am sure that the House would want to pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which he has steered the Bill through the various processes that he described earlier. We give him credit for the fact that he has used new procedures to ensure that there has been the fullest consultation at every stage. That is much appreciated. However, despite all the consultation and the Minister's best offices, this is an enabling Bill, which gives the Government enormous powers to do almost whatever they want.
7.30 pm
The Minister is aware that, on Second Reading, I was critical of the fact that the Government were taking those unnecessary powers. I pointed out that it would be undesirable because the measure gives MAFF a blueprint to come back with further measures at any stage—"any time, any place", as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden says. Those measures will not be subject to the same scrutiny as the Bill.
On Second Reading, I quoted the opening sentence of clause 21, which states:
The Agency has power to do anything.
I criticised that. The Minister responded by saying, in effect, that it was grossly unfair of me to have quoted only the first part of that sentence. However, if I now quote the full sentence, the Minister will agree that the sense is not changed in any way. It states:
The Agency has power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of its functions.
For the sake of brevity on Second Reading, I did not use the whole sentence, but whether one uses only the first seven words or the whole sentence, it makes no difference. Obviously, if the agency has powers to do anything, such powers must be within its remit. I was not pretending for one moment that the Bill enabled the Government to do anything in any matter. It stands to reason that the provision applies only to the Bill. The Minister was being too sensitive in his winding-up speech on Second Reading, when he referred to my criticism of the fact that the Government had taken so much power.
At this late stage in the Bill's proceedings, it will be difficult—if not impossible—to persuade Ministers to renounce or limit the Bill's powers. However, it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to consider my amendment, which would provide for the Government to make a report to Parliament about the powers that they exercise under clause 21. The Minister should be sympathetic to the amendment; he is a democrat, and he shares our concern about the plethora of legislation that emanates from Government. This is not a party political point; during the past decade or so, Governments of all persuasions have been equally guilty in passing enabling legislation, which has triggered the plethora of regulation to which we all object.
I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment. It is supported by the Food and Drink Federation—the recognised umbrella organisation for many trade associations in the food and drink industry, although not all of them belong to it. In a circular letter, which I imagine has been sent to all Members of Parliament who are interested in the Bill, the federation says that it supports the objective of the amendment in seeking an annual report on the exercise of the agency's powers under clause 21 and believes that that should be included in the annual report that the agency is required, under clause 4, to make to Parliament.
The Minister is a reasonable man and I know that he takes great pride in the Bill. It has been his baby and he has steered it all the way through its parliamentary process. He was there at its inception and, God willing, he will be there when it reaches the statute book. Such things as reshuffles intervene, but I hope that the Minister will survive the next reshuffle in his present office where, within the constraints that the overall direction of his Government impose, he has done a very good job.
On behalf of my industry, I compliment the Minister on taking the time and the trouble to understand the industry. We do not underestimate his achievement. The Minister represents an urban constituency and it is unlikely that he knew much about agriculture, livestock and all the processes associated with them when he assumed his present role. However, the Minister has learned about them and the industry is grateful to him for doing so.
With that background of knowledge and understanding and as a result of the educational courses he has undertaken, the Minister must recognise that the Government are taking unlimited powers that they currently do not need. If such powers were necessary, presumably they would be spelt out in the Bill. However, the Government have not done that. As they are taking draconian powers for reasons that are not obvious, the Government should return to the House at some stage—once a year is suggested—to report what has been done under this particular clause.
On Second Reading, I was critical of other clauses in the Bill for exactly the same reason. It is hypocritical for politicians to sympathise with our constituents about the burden, cost and nuisance of legislation when we participate in debates on legislation such as this which will open the floodgates to even more regulation. On Second Reading, I referred to my support for the Food Safety Bill in 1990.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be more specific and remain within the terms of his amendment. In some respects, he is making a Second Reading speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should remind us of the content of his amendment.

Mr. Gill: I shall come directly to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Members of Parliament may consider legislation such as the Food Standards Bill but we do not always examine, scrutinise and criticise it in the way that we should. That is particularly true of new Members of Parliament. I was a new Member myself once, and I have kicked myself for not being more diligent in respect of the 1990 legislation to which I referred a moment ago that led to other legislation—to much of which I and others would have objected.
That is a most important point for the House to understand. If we pass general legislation and put enabling Bills on to the statute book, we should not be surprised and should not complain if Departments then introduce many regulations that we had not foreseen.
In conclusion, I make a final plea to the Minister to act with his characteristic even-handedness, fairness and understanding and accept the amendment.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): As the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, we had much debate in Committee about the independence of the agency as a non-ministerial Department. It might help the House if I reiterate the rules under which the agency will operate.
In its day-to-day operation, the agency will be at arm's length from Ministers, and staff will be accountable to its chairman and members. It will have the unprecedented independence to publish the advice that it gives to Ministers. However, it would be wrong to suggest that the

agency should be wholly independent of democratically accountable Ministers. Ministers will retain ultimate responsibility for policy and legislation, and it is right that they should do so, but they will turn to the agency for policy advice. The agency will be the Government's primary source of advice on food safety and standards.
I am not convinced that the amendment is helpful, because Ministers will naturally explain to the agency why they are asking for advice, and the agency will have powers to publish any information in its possession, unless that is specifically prohibited by an enactment or Community obligations, or unless publication would make the agency in contempt of court. It would, therefore, be able to publish information about requests from Ministers.
It is not, however, appropriate to place on Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments, the National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments the extra duty to publish immediately the reason why they are asking for advice. In sensitive matters, such as negotiations or legal proceedings, publication of the reasons for requesting advice might be premature. As we reflected in Committee, it might also be socially embarrassing. A Minister might seek advice from the agency about whether to attend a particular function, and if the answer were blunt, clearly embarrassment could result.
Although the power can be used to ensure that advice is given, there is no way in which it can be used to dictate the content of that advice. It will be left to the agency to decide how to respond to requests for advice, information and assistance from Ministers. Records of the agency's decisions and the information on which they are based will be publicly available, which means that information about Ministers' requests to the agency and how those requests were dealt with will become publicly available.
It is very important that we do not make Ministers' dealings with the agency so constrained that they simply find alternative sources of advice within existing Departments. Clearly, that would undermine one of the important purposes for which the agency is being established.
7.45 pm
I turn now to amendment No. 12. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and put to rest some of his worst fears.
I reiterate a point that was forcefully made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister of State—that the clause does not give the agency unusual powers. The agency has only the powers given to it by the Bill, but it is very important technically and legally that the agency has the powers that it is given by the clause so that it can, for instance, enter into contracts to have its offices cleaned and arrange for stationery supplies. Everything that the agency does will obviously be constrained by the extent of its powers, which are clearly set out in the Bill, and the very important qualifications about the exercise of its powers, especially in relation to the assessment of risk and proportionality.
The agency will publish an annual report, which will be laid before Parliament. We have made clear the importance that we, as Ministers, attach to the annual report, but I think that if we were to publish in the annual report a list of photocopying contracts and stationery orders, it would make dull reading.
I finish by saying that, far from being anything as exotic as the Martini clause, clause 21 is the stuff of basic departmental and agency housekeeping. I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Food and Drink Federation has contributed its views freely throughout a long process of consultation, and where appropriate, the Bill has been improved as a result of its representations. However, if we were to put on the face of the Bill the terms under which the agency would order its pencils and monitor its paper supplies, it would diminish the enormous importance that we attach to its overriding task of protecting public health and improving standards of food safety. I therefore very much hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. Spelman: I have carefully listened to the right hon. Lady's explanation. She stated the circumstances in which it might not be appropriate for reasons to be published immediately when the agency was requested to exercise its powers, and I can envisage circumstances in which that would be true. It was a bit of a let-down to hear the rather benign examples of purposes for which the exotically titled clause 21 would be used but, having listened to those explanations—

Mr. Gill: I wonder whether my hon. Friend thought, as I did, that the Minister trivialised clause 21 by referring to the unnecessary procedure of having to report matters relating to office cleaning, stationery supplies, pencil orders, paper supplies and so on. However, clause 21(2)(d) talks about the instituting of criminal proceedings. We are not talking only about trivial items such as the ordering of pencils. This is a very serious point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech during an intervention; that is just not on.

Mrs. Spelman: Obviously, I appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) because we approach the point from the same direction, but in Committee, we received an explanation of the circumstances in which it might be necessary for the agency to institute criminal proceedings, and I refer him to Hansard on that point. The wording of clause 21 is difficult for a reader coming to it for the first time, but we accept that, as the Minister said in Committee, it should be read in conjunction with the other clauses.
It is interesting to note, and worth placing on the record given the likelihood that we shall not reach Government amendment No. 28, that that amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons for giving directions to the Food Standards Agency in the event of a breach of duty. We welcome that amendment. It shows that the Government are sensitive to the point that there are times when it is paramount to make the reasons explicit and publish them. We accept that there may be other times when it is inappropriate—in particular, the timing may

be inappropriate—to publish the reasons for requiring the agency to exercise its powers. For these reasons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Gill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I, too, listened carefully to the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way?

Mrs. Spelman: I have withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

POWERS OF ENTRY FOR PERSONS CARRYING OUT OBSERVATIONS

Ms Jowell: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 3, leave out from 'out' to end of line and insert
'any observations under section 10 specified in the authorisation.
(1A) No authorisation under this section shall be issued except in pursuance of a decision taken by the Agency itself or by a committee, sub-committee or member of the Agency acting on behalf of the Agency.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 20 to 27.

Ms Jowell: We had a full and detailed debate in Committee on the operation of clauses 11 and 14, to ensure specifically first, that only the agency, or one of its committees or sub-committees, or a member acting on behalf of the agency, authorised the use of powers of entry. Secondly, the Committee wished to ensure that the authorisation would be limited to a particular purpose if it was issued under clause 11—in relation to carrying out observations—which would be stated in the authorisation itself. We agreed that receipts for samples or copies of documents would be given on request.
Clause 11 deals with powers of entry for the purposes of carrying out observations, and clause 14 deals with monitoring the performance of enforcement authorities. The amendments bring the improvements that we debated in Committee in line with the powers set out in clauses 11 and 14.
When considering clause 11, we explained in detail the way in which we expected the powers of entry to be used. We stressed that they were not to be used for enforcement purposes, but were about information gathering to inform the agency's policy development role.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister will be aware of my interest in the case of her Department v. Aldridge, involving Duckett's cheese. Can I be reassured that the evidence that has been revealed through that long saga has been taken into account in drawing up the details of clause 11? The right hon. Lady will be aware that there are real concerns in the industry about the way in which enforcement powers in previous legislation have been used. I think that most people recognise that big sledgehammers were used to crack small nuts.

Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department of Health won the recent appeal following the


judicial review. The judgment reflected the fact that there had been an imminent risk to health, and that the application of the powers that the Department and I took were proportionate in light of the degree of risk. Given that it was the first time that the power had been applied and that it has major consequences for businesses, we have sought to examine the effects of its operation.
Let no one be in any doubt about the risk to health that was posed by the contamination of cheese by E. coli 0157—contamination that left a 12-year-old boy on dialysis and seriously ill in hospital. We acted, and we were right to act. The experience of operating the power informed our consideration of the way in which the agency should carry out observation as part of its surveillance function.
I shall deal briefly with the amendments relating to clause 14. Authorisations issued under clause 14 do not need to state the purpose, because the power of entry is already clearly limited to monitoring the performance of enforcement authorities. Amendments Nos. 21 and 25 meet our commitment that receipts for samples or copies of documents should be provided on request.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 to clause 11 and amendments Nos. 26 and 27 to clause 14 are minor drafting changes. I explained in Committee that we would introduce drafting changes to clarify ambiguities. On several occasions in Committee, the Opposition proposed a code of practice governing the exercise of the powers. It was agreed that there should be clear rules governing the behaviour of authorised persons exercising powers of entry.
With these Government amendments, the Bill will provide rules, which we expect to be supplemented by general guidance. In light of that, we do not see the need for a statutory code of practice. We agree that there should be guidance, and that that should be available to members of the public.

Mrs. Spelman: I shall be brief, as we are keen for discussion to proceed to the next set of amendments, which are a significant group.
We welcome the Government's amendments, which respond to some of the concerns that we raised in Committee about the powers of entry. We are pleased that the ambiguities that we pointed out in the original drafting of clauses 11 and 14 will be resolved satisfactorily. The Government's amendments improve on the proposal for a code of practice. The Bill itself will make it clear how Food Standards Agency officers should conduct themselves upon entering commercial premises.
It would be right to record the residual concern of the Food and Drink Federation about the confidentiality of information that might be collected when the officers enter premises. The fact that a receipt will be given, as we requested in one of our original amendments, should allay some of the fears about transparency. We are grateful for the Government's concessions and take some pride in having had a hand in amending the Bill to ensure that the powers being granted to the FSA are less likely to be abused in relation to commercial interests.

Ms Jowell: May I clarify that point? It was one of the issues that we took on board following the Special Select Committee. Unofficial disclosure of commercially

sensitive information collected in the course of observation will be an offence. That is clearly stated in the Bill.

8 pm

Mrs. Spelman: We perfectly understand that, and we are pleased that that requirement extends also to anybody who might now accompany the authorised FSA officer. We asked for that and we are glad to see it.
For the sake of total transparency in all our doings, I should like to record that, in expressing our gratitude for these concessions, we pushed our luck quite far in Committee. It was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that the Government's recognition of that might extend to inviting us to the party that traditionally follows the passage of a Bill through the House. I take this opportunity to record our gratitude for having received invitations to that party. It may be quite an historic occasion, and we record our thanks.

Dr. Brand: I rise briefly to welcome the amendments and say that they have made worth while the many hours—occasionally not very interesting hours—that we spent in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 5, line 7, leave out from 'out' to end of line and insert
'the observations specified in his authorisation'.
No. 21, in page 5, line 18, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 19 and insert 'on request—


(a) produce his authorisation before exercising any powers under subsection (3); and
(b) provide a document identifying any sample taken, or documents copied, under those powers.'.


No. 22, in page 5, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'any' and insert
'If an authorised person who enters'.
No. 23, in page 5, line 31 leave out from 'secret' to 'guilty' in line 32 and insert
'he is, unless the disclosure is made in the performance of his duty,'.—[Ms Jowell.]

Clause 12

MONITORING OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION

8 pm

Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 21, at end insert—
'(6) In any case where the Agency itself or a body for which it is accountable is the enforcement authority, subsection (1) shall not have effect and the function of monitoring enforcement shall be held by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in schedule 3, page 27, line 27, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 28.
No. 18, in schedule 4, page 32, line 35, leave out from 'omitted' to end of line 37.

Mr. Paice: The Minister of State suggested that we might not reach this group of amendments, but I am


pleased that we have, as it enables us primarily to discuss the Meat Hygiene Service. I shall not take a long time rehearsing the arguments because we spent some time on the matter in Committee. However, I have taken the opportunity to look again at what the Minister said in reply to that debate, and I have tried to address the issue in amendments Nos. 3 and 9. I shall come to amendment No. 18 in a moment.
Amendment No. 3 turns on its head the approach that the Opposition previously adopted. which was to prevent the FSA taking over the MHS. The reason we do not want the two to be in cahoots is quite clear. We want a clear distinction between enforcement and the monitoring of that enforcement. We recognise that there will be times, in extremis, when the FSA will have to take on enforcement measures—if, for example, another authority fails in its duties; that is in the Bill and we accept it—but to take it on in that situation for, one assumes, a temporary period, is different from its being part and parcel of the agency's usual functions.
In Committee, the Minister clearly said:
The chief executive"—
of the MHS—
does not create policy; he receives policy instructions from MAFF. Likewise, he will receive them from the FSA staff'.
That clearly indicates to me that there is a problem.
The Minister went on to refer to the idea of the FSA being
born out of the suspicion that the Ministry should not ride two horses and the paradox of a regulatory Ministry sponsoring the food and the farming industries.
I accept that in the way in which he said it, but that paradox applies equally to the idea of the FSA setting some regulations, enforcing them through the MHS and then monitoring their enforcement.
There are not many other walks of public life in which both the enforcement and the monitoring of the effectiveness of that enforcement are done by the same body.

Mr. Rooker: There is not much time to put this on the record, but the auditing of the MHS goes beyond the FSA. The EU Commission's Food and Veterinary Office and the state veterinary service, which is not part of the FSA, will all be involved in this function.

Mr. Paice: The Minister makes precisely my next point. In Committee, he said:
the MHS is accountable to EU inspectors, who can arrive with no warning. The inspections will be audited by the state veterinary service as well as by the veterinary public health unit of the joint food safety and standards group".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 July 1999; c. 299–300.]
If all those bodies monitor the MHS, why on earth do we need the FSA as well?

Mr. Rooker: rose—

Mr. Paice: I shall give the Minister time to reply; he does not need to intervene.
I do not understand why it is necessary for the FSA to fulfil that role. The Minister worried members of the Committee when he said that the Government were still

exploring the management arrangements between the FSA and the MHS. He spoke about Chinese walls of separation. We are not at all convinced that they will be as effective as they ought to be.
Amendment No. 9 was effectively given to us by the Government in Committee when the Minister pointed out the implications of another amendment that I had tabled. He now has two opportunities to accept our argument in two different ways. If the Government are obsessed with pursuing the idea of putting the MHS with the FSA, they can do so as long as they leave the monitoring of enforcement with MAFF and with those other bodies to which he has referred. Amendment No. 3 would allow them to do that.
Amendment No. 18, which relates to schedule 4, is designed to control the overweening power of the agency. The Minister for Public Health, who seems to have evaporated from the Front Bench, said that we have spent a lot of time talking about the independence of the agency. She is quite right: there is no contradiction between seeking to establish an independent agency and ensuring that it does not have excessive power. That amendment is designed to ensure that, in at least one area, the agency's power would be constrained. It would not be given the powers that Ministers have under the Food Safety Act 1990.
Other brief contributions may be made, but I am sure that the Minister will have a moment or two to reply before we run out of time.

Dr. Brand: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has told us that he was riding two horses; I believe he has jumped on the wrong one.
We have supported the Conservatives in their contention that it is not appropriate to site the Meat Hygiene Service with the Food Standards Agency because its size is disproportionate to that of the agency, but I firmly believe that the FSA ought to have a role in monitoring and policy setting for all the enforcement agencies. If the FSA had been in existence a few years ago and had done the job properly, the MHS would never have had to be set up. It would not have to be taken away from local authorities because there would have been a mechanism in place for intervention, short of the nuclear option, as described by the Minister, of direct ministerial intervention. We cannot support the amendment because it takes the wrong direction.
In time, if not tonight, I hope that the Minister will be able to describe how he has worked through the concept of separating the policy-setting function of the agency and the semi-autonomous role of the MHS in the execution of that function.
It is absolutely vital that the FSA sets clear criteria for what it considers to be failure by an enforcement authority. It would be quite wrong for it to have powers that could be applied quite arbitrarily to, for example, a local standards agency or other enforcement agencies that are under local authority control. The criteria on performance must be clear, and one would expect warning systems so that an agency does not suddenly come down like a ton of bricks on an unsuspecting small district council that does not realise that it is under-performing.
We cannot support the amendment although the spirit behind it was right, separating the Meat Hygiene Service from the Food Standards Agency. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has taken the wrong horse of the two that he might have taken.

Mr. Rooker: I should like to make a serious attempt to respond to the debate. This is one of the most important groups of amendments, which we started on, if I recall correctly, at 8 o'clock. [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is back. We have had the debates without him and made reasonable progress.
There is no way I can do justice to the issue, which is important. I do not criticise the Opposition for raising their concerns, but I can make only general, rather than specific, comments.
The prime reason for the Meat Hygiene Service and, indeed, the Dairy Hygiene Service being, effectively, an integral part of the agency is that they are 100 per cent. concerned with food safety, whereas the other agencies under MAFF, including the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Pesticides Safety Directorate, are not exclusively related to food safety. They are out. They will remain as executive agencies, but with all the links to the agency.

Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: No.
The other thing that I want to make clear—I have lost count of how many times I said it in Committee, but it has to be said so that it is taken on board by those who look at our proceedings—is that there are no plans or agenda to create a national enforcement authority. That is the position. The Bill does not allow one to be set up. One could argue that if a local authority failed in its enforcement duties the powers are in the Bill to have that dealt with. That is not envisaged. It is not part of any hidden agenda, whatever anyone might say about how the Meat Hygiene Service was formed in the first place.
In Committee I discovered that, in some quarters, there is an abiding hatred of the Meat Hygiene Service. As someone said a couple of days ago, there is a romantic attachment to the good old days, when 300 separate local authorities checked the abattoirs. At that time, there were 900 abattoirs. We inherited only 300—a few closed in the 18 years of Tory rule.
As we saw in the public hearings of the Phillips inquiry, during those halcyon, romantic days of local authorities checking meat hygiene in abattoirs, there was an abject breakdown in the controls, which led to BSE infectivity going into the food chain, so it is not true that things were 100 per cent. perfect when 300 local authorities were dealing with the matter.
With hindsight, I accept that the actions of the previous Government in setting up the Meat Hygiene Service were totally correct. There are no plans to devolve it back. Nevertheless, there is no agenda to take local authorities' role at any level—that of environmental health officers or trading standards officers. They are the front-line police throughout the food chain. We want to work in partnership with them. That is the way in which the Bill has been set up.
We will make separate arrangements for the management reporting of the Meat Hygiene Service within the Foods Standards Agency and for the audit. I am convinced that we can do that. If it can be done in the private sector, with audit companies both carrying out internal and external audits of their clients and maintaining Chinese walls, we can do it here. If I had had more time, I could have put on the record some of the management mechanisms that we propose to introduce, but perhaps that can be done in another place.
The genuine concerns that have been raised have been met by the content of the Bill and the way in which we intend the structures to operate in practice. There is still some work to do, but there are a few months in which to do it.

It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 14

POWER OF ENTRY FOR MONITORING ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 6, line 42, at end insert—
'(IA) No authorisation under this section shall be issued except in pursuance of a decision taken by the Agency itself or by a committee, sub-committee or member of the Agency acting on behalf of the Agency.'.
No. 25, in page 7, line 24, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 25 and insert 'on request—


(a) produce his authorisation before exercising any powers under subsection (3); and
(b) provide a document identifying any sample taken, or documents copied, under those powers.'.
No. 26, in page 7, line 26 leave out from beginning to 'any' in line 27 and insert
'If a person who enters'.
No. 27, in page 7, line 29 leave out from 'secret' to 'guilty' in line 30 and insert
'he is, unless the disclosure is made in the performance of his duty,'. [Mr. Rooker.]

Clause 24

DIRECTIONS RELATING TO BREACH OF DUTY OR TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 12, line 29 at end insert
'(2A) Directions under subsection (1) must include a statement summarising the reasons for giving them.'. [Mr. Rooker.]

Clause 39

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 21, line 20 at end insert—
'(6A) Schedule (Accounts and audit)(accounts and audit) has effect.'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

Schedule 1

CONSTITUTION ETC. OF THE AGENCY

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 25, line 32, leave out from 'affect' to end of line 33 and insert
'the rule of law by virtue of which functions of the Agency may be carried out through members of its staff.—[Mr. Rooker.]

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 33, line 45, leave out '4' and insert '6'.

No. 35, in page 36, line 5, at end insert—
'Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)

. In Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 there shall be inserted—
Food Standards Agency.
Food Standards Agency advisory committee for Wales.".'—[Mr. Rooker.]

New Schedule 1

ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

1. For the purposes of this Schedule—
relevant authorities" means the Treasury, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland;
relevant bodies" means the House of Commons, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly;
the Department" means the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland.

Appropriation accounts

2.—(1) Where any appropriation accounts of the Agency or report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on such accounts are laid before the House of Commons under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall send copies to the relevant authorities for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(2) The Scottish Ministers shall present documents received under this paragraph to the Scottish Parliament and the Department shall present such documents to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Accounts of Agency relating to sums paid or appropriated under s.39(3)

3.—(1) The Agency shall prepare separate accounts for each year of its expenditure in relation to each of the following descriptions of sums, that is to say—

(a) the sums paid by the National Assembly for Wales under section 39(3)(a);
(b) the sums paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund under section 39(3)(b); or
(c) sums appropriated by Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly under section 39(3)(c).

(2) Any sum received by the Agency which it applies by virtue of any relevant provision (within the meaning of section 39) shall be regarded as falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of sub-paragraph (1), as the case may require.

(3) Accounts required under this paragraph relating to sums of any description mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) shall be prepared in such form, and
(b) shall be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and to the relevant authority for the accounts, before such time,

as the relevant authority for the accounts may direct after consulting the Agency and the other relevant authorities.

(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine any accounts sent to him under sub-paragraph (3) on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly (according to the description of sums to which the accounts relate).

(5) In carrying out his examination of any such accounts the Comptroller and Auditor General shall, among other things, satisfy himself that the money expended by the Agency has been applied to the purpose or purposes for which the sums in question were intended to provide.

(6) When the Comptroller and Auditor General has certified and reported on any accounts under this section, he shall—

(a) send the accounts and report to the relevant authority for the accounts; and
(b) send copies to the other relevant authorities.

(7) The Treasury shall present documents received under sub-paragraph (6) to the House of Commons, the Scottish Ministers shall present such documents to the Scottish Parliament and the Department shall present such documents to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(8) In this paragraph "the relevant authority for the accounts" is—

(a) in the case of accounts relating to sums within sub-paragraph (1)(a), the National Assembly for Wales;
(b) in the case of accounts relating to sums within sub-paragraph (1)(b), the Scottish Ministers; and
(c) in the case of accounts relating to sums within sub-paragraph (1)(c), the Department.

Consolidated accounts

4.—(1) The Agency shall prepare consolidated accounts for each financial year showing its income and expenditure and its overall state of affairs for that year.
(2) Accounts under this paragraph shall—

(a) be prepared in such form (and include such documents), and
(b) be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Treasury before such time,

as the Treasury may direct after consulting the Agency and the other relevant authorities.

(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine any accounts sent to him under sub-paragraph (2) on behalf of the House of Commons.

(4) When any such accounts have been certified and reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor General, he shall—

(a) send the certified accounts and the report to the Treasury who shall lay them before the House of Commons; and
(b) send copies of those documents to the other relevant authorities.

(5) The Scottish Ministers shall present documents received under sub-paragraph (4) to the Scottish Parliament and the Department shall present such documents to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Accounts under s. 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921

5.—(1) Any functions of the Treasury under section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 shall, subject to


sub-paragraph (2), be exercisable in relation to the Agency with the consent of the other relevant authorities and after consulting the Agency.

(2) The consent of a relevant authority is not required if the operations concerned do not include operations carried out in or in relation to the jurisdiction for which it is the relevant authority.

(3) If a direction under section 5 of that Act is given in respect of the Agency, that section shall have effect as if any reference to Parliament or the House of Commons included a reference to each of the other relevant bodies, other than the relevant body for any jurisdiction referred to in sub-paragraph (2).

Functions of Comptroller under s. 9 of the National Audit Act 1983

6.—(1) The power of the Comptroller and Auditor General to make reports to the House of Commons under section 9 of the National Audit Act 1983 includes power, in relation to any examination of the Agency under section 6 of that Act, to make reports to any of the other relevant bodies.

(2) If the Comptroller and Auditor General makes a report to one or more of the relevant bodies under section 9 of that Act in relation to such an examination, he shall lay a copy of the report before each of the other relevant bodies.'—[Mr. Rooker.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Order for Third reading read.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. GRAHAM ALLEN and MR. KEITH HILL were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but there being no Tellers for the Noes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 48) on 1999–2000 Special Grant for developing new approaches to commissioning services for drug misusers (HC 513), which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Coleridge Community College

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am proud to present a petition—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind hon. Members that an hon. Member is presenting a petition. They must leave the Chamber quietly.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am proud to present a petition signed by 21,400 residents of Cambridge, opposing the closure of Coleridge community college on the grounds that its closure would mean the loss of an excellent school and a well-used community college, and increasing congestion as the children are bussed across the city.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Cambridge and elsewhere declares, that we totally oppose the closure of Coleridge Community College, Radegund Rd, Cambridge.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to do all in his power to prevent Cambridgeshire County Council from closing the College.
And the Petitioners remain.

To lie upon the Table.

West Midlands Special Needs Transport Ltd.

Mr. Robin Corbett: It is my pleasure to present a petition signed by my friend Councillor Renee Spector and more than 10,000 other users and supporters of West Midlands Special Needs Transport Ltd., otherwise known as Ring and Ride.
The petition states:
That the present system of rebates of fuel duty paid to Commercial Passenger Transport Companies, who operate scheduled public transport services, is not paid to "Ring and Ride" or "Dial a Ride" type services. We consider that this system unfairly discriminates against persons with mobility difficulties to whom these services are the equivalent of normal bus services, which they are physically unable to use.

To lie upon the Table.

Hunted Animals

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by constituents who are members of the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.
The petition reads:
To the House of Commons. The petition of residents of the constituency of Maidstone and the Weald declares that we believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in a modern Britain. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to act on the overwhelming mandate it has received from MPs and the public to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition. And the petitioners remain etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Elderly (East Sussex)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: The Government appear to be obsessed with youth. They are keen on cool Britannia, and the so-called rebranding of Britain. Yet, as a country, we are getting older—some of us faster than others. I am constantly amazed by the number of 100th-birthday parties to which I am invited in Eastbourne. I see from a newsletter issued recently by the Debate of the Age that Posh Spice can expect her new baby, improbably named Brooklyn Adams-Beckham, to live to the ripe old age of 130. It sometimes seems, however, that the Government are oblivious of those simple facts, and even that their policies, taken together, are designed to disadvantage older people. I think that I can claim to know what I am talking about: roughly 40 per cent. of my voters are over retirement age, and I am co-chairman of the all-party group for older people.
Almost the Government's first act was to abolish tax relief for retired people who had private medical insurance. I received many letters on the subject. For many such people, who had been in corporate schemes when they were working, tax relief was what made maintaining their health cover in retirement just possible. As a result of the Government's action, many had to give it up, or reduce the extent of their cover. I even initiated a debate on the matter, but the Government were deaf to all entreaties.
Then the Government reneged on their clear pre-election pledge to legislate against age discrimination. We all know from our experience as constituency Members how often able older people aged 50 or even younger are tossed on the scrap heap. We have a voluntary code of conduct; no doubt good employers are already following it, but bad ones will not.
Nor has the Chancellor been kind to older people. In his first Budget, he ripped off pension funds to the tune of £5 billion. Then we had the abolition of dividend tax credits, which directly prejudices 600,000 mainly elderly non-taxpayers. The married couples allowance was removed for couples who will be under 65 in April 2000. Widows have lost their bereavement allowance, which has a particular effect on older widows. Moreover, 250,000 women will be losers under the new rules for widows benefit.
Many older people in Eastbourne and elsewhere are very dependent on their cars, but this Chancellor is trying to tax them off the road. Now, we hear that the Government are intending to abolish concessionary television licences. What next, I wonder—especially when the BBC is seeking to raise the fee to well above £100?
The Government are moving towards a two-tier, means-tested state pension system that will penalise those of my constituents who have been thrifty during all their working lives. The so-called minimum pension guarantee is a fraud on pensioners, as more than 1 million pensioners will simply not be eligible for it.
Then there is the state earnings-related pension scheme scandal. As from April 2000, widows and widowers will be able to inherit only half of their late spouse's SERPS

entitlement. Despite the fact that the change was made as long ago as 1986, until relatively recently, the Benefits Agency was misleading my constituents, and those of many other hon. Members, who have been affected by the change. In common with other hon. Members, I referred cases to the ombudsman. I am pleased that Ministers now accept that the problem must be examined, with a view to compensation being paid. I do not know whether the Minister will be able today to shed any light on the matter.
When in opposition, Labour said that things could only get better—but surely it could not have been speaking about our national health service. After a recent debate that I initiated, the Minister ordered an urgent inquiry into nursing at Eastbourne district general hospital. Our local NHS has also had cuts—in chiropody services, for example—that cause great distress to many of my elderly constituents. In all, about 300 people were thrown off podiatry waiting lists.
The royal commission on long-term care deliberated for 18 months, but its conclusions have now effectively been shunted into a siding by the Government. While the commission deliberated, an estimated 75,000 people had to sell their homes to pay for care. When will Ministers tackle the very real problems of funding long-term care for the elderly?
As the Minister knows, many older people are cared for, or are carers themselves. I have had letters from constituents in their 70s and 80s who have taken on the role of carer, often for a spouse suffering from Alzheimer's or another condition. Hard-pressed health services and social services departments are struggling to help when they are able, and I know that the Minister has taken a close personal interest in carers' issues. Although some of the Government's proposals on the matter deserve a cautious welcome, the extra funding announced recently works out at an additional 15p a week—which is hardly enough to recognise the billions of pounds saved to taxpayers each year by the estimated 5.7 million voluntary carers in the United Kingdom.
Taking all those factors together, one could be forgiven for asking: what do the Government have against the elderly?

Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. Friend is analysing accurately the damage that the Government are doing to elderly people. Is it not also true that people who have fought for the United Kingdom, and lived long lives here, resent the Government for putting the euro ahead of the pound sterling and for selling our gold reserves at knock-down prices?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a very cogent point on a view that is held by many of my elderly constituents.
The most important and pressing issue that I should like to raise today affecting the elderly in East Sussex is the plight of independent residential care homes, which face two major problems: a Labour Government, and a Lib-Lab pact running the county council.
I recently addressed a meeting, in Eastbourne town hall, of more than 100 worried care home operators. Some of them had already gone out of business, whereas others were under pressure from their banks. They told me that they were facing a triple whammy. East Sussex pays the lowest fees to the private sector of any county in the


United Kingdom. The current rate is £209, which is made worse by the fact that the county council pays its own homes the equivalent of £402 per person per week—an incredible difference of almost £200. The situation is rightly perceived as unfair by the private sector.
Furthermore, by insisting on keeping its own homes open, the county is wasting millions of pounds that could be better spent in the private sector. That is partly a matter of political dogma. I pay tribute to the dedication of staff in the county council-run homes. However, there is no less commitment in private homes, where the facilities are often more modern and more comfortable. It is therefore all the more distasteful when local Liberal Democrat politicians try to make political capital by claiming that residents of those homes would not receive treatment at least as good in the private sector.
Indeed, it is interesting that, in principle, the ruling group seems to have accepted the wisdom of disposing of the county's homes, despite what is said in its focus leaflets from time to time. As Councillor Peter Jones pointed out in a letter to me the other day, in 1998–99, the group tried to sell three homes as going concerns—those that were most non-compliant with current minimum standards.
The Conservatives on the council warned that the poor state of the homes meant that the group would almost certainly fail. Indeed, after some months, the group had failed to find a single credible buyer. There is a real problem here, with the county homes—despite the best efforts of staff—falling below the standards required in this modern age.
This is nothing new. I drew attention to the problem in a debate before the last election. On 19 February 1997, in an Adjournment debate, I said that
even if the Government could be persuaded to give a few million extra pounds to East Sussex, there would be no guarantee that the money would find its way through the system to independent care home owners.
I regret to say that nothing has changed. The same bunch of Liberal Democrats are, in effect, still running the county.
I pointed out in the 1997 debate that the disparity between what the council spent on its own homes and that spent in the private sector was £150. The gap has widened in the intervening period. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), said that East Sussex was spending £5 million more than it needed. He went on to say:
When a local authority is complaining that it does not have enough money, I cannot understand how it can justify spending about £152 a person a week extra just by placing them in its own homes."—[Official Report,19 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 890–898.]
Does the Minister agree with his Conservative predecessor? Has he an up-to-date calculation of the money being wasted in this way by the county council? Does he agree that the council is in danger of abusing its dominant purchasing power in this instance? Will he initiate an urgent inquiry into the policy of the county council?
The council claims, with some justification, that it does not get enough funding from the Government. We know that the Government have cut grants for areas such as East Sussex. They have also rigged the calculation of

grants, so they no longer fully reflect the effect of large numbers in our elderly population locally. Will he try to justify the level of funding for East Sussex?
We are dealing with Liberal Democrats, so they must look for someone else to blame. It is a bit difficult when they are, effectively, in a coalition with Labour, both locally and nationally. They are talking to Ministers about an all-party approach, but the harsh reality is that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The owners of homes are threatened with over-regulation, and they have the working time directive and the minimum wage to contend with. It is a matter not just of the rules themselves, but of the extra record-keeping that is involved.
As if that were not enough, we have the Government-sponsored report from the Centre for Policy on Ageing, which calls for some nationally required standards, including those relating to room sizes. This is all very well in an ideal world, and we should all aspire to ever-higher standards. However, the plain fact is that many existing homes would have to close if those proposals were implemented. The physical standards proposed are a major problem, but so are the proposals about staffing, sharing rooms and so on. This could be the final straw for many homes. We recently debated that worrying development—at my instigation—in the all-party ageing and older people group.
I am pleased that Ministers confirmed to me recently that the proposals would be subject to proper consultation later this year. Will the Minister outline his plans for the consultation and confirm that he has a genuinely open mind? I am particularly indebted to Terry Fribbens of the East Sussex Independent Care Group and Carole Alford of the Registered Nursing Home Association for bringing this dreadful state of affairs to my attention.
I have heard also from many individuals—too many to name here. Here are some examples of the authentic voice of the independent care sector in my area. A letter from a lady who runs a residential home in my constituency said:
The private sector providing Residential Care Homes have been persecuted for too long…What we want to know is why we the private sector are paid almost half the fees that the Councils pay themselves. This is grossly unfair.
A lady from another home who attended a meeting that I addressed recently complained about the 1 per cent. or thereabouts increase given by the county to the private sector when it increased the fees for its own homes by 6 per cent. She talked about people in the sector being caused real difficulties by the squeeze from the county council.
I can tell the Minister without fear of contradiction that there is a major threat hanging over the independent care sector in East Sussex. At least 24 homes have closed in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove in the past year. That is extremely worrying, because they provide more than 90 per cent. of the care home rooms in East Sussex. If they are driven out of business, where are the people in need to be looked after? Certainly not in the public sector.
In our area, the residential care sector is a major part of the local economy, employing about 10,000 people. They are victims of the attitude of the Lib-Lab pact at county hall: a mixture of dogma and incompetence. The Government have promised that this is the year of delivering on their election promises across the board. What will they do to help?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on raising these important matters. He spoke about the Government's policy towards older people and how we are going to tackle hardship and poverty among them. I rebut his allegation that we are indifferent or have not developed effective policies for tackling those issues, because I strongly believe that we have.
If we are to succeed in tackling poverty and the social exclusion that is its direct consequence, we have to take effective action right across Government. That is exactly what we are doing. Past attempts to deal with these issues—including those by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a supporter—have principally focused on short-term alleviation and very little has been done to prevent problems occurring in the future.
Our approach is radically different and dynamic. It is based on tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion, not merely alleviating the symptoms. We are determined to create a fairer society in which all our citizens have opportunities to maximise their potential. Fundamentally, our strategy is about investment in individuals and communities to equip them to take control of their own lives and to get out of dependency and deprivation.
The hon. Gentleman has understandable concerns about hardship and poverty for older people in and around his constituency. Our policies will directly benefit those people. For many people, retirement is a time of opportunity, fulfilment, and contribution to the family and society, but for too many it can still be a time of financial insecurity, isolation and poor access to services.
Our policy priorities are to ensure that more of tomorrow's pensioners can retire on a decent income, and to tackle the problems of low income and social exclusion among today's pensioners, while improving opportunities for older people to live secure, fulfilling and active lives.
We are reforming pensions to give people real opportunities to save for their retirement. Our Green Paper "Partnerships in Pensions" set out our proposals for a new contract for pensioners, including dramatic improvements in state second pensions for low earners, carers and disabled people, and a better deal for middle and higher earners through new low-cost stakeholder schemes.
The hon. Gentleman failed to mention the fact that we have announced a £4 billion package, over the lifetime of this Parliament, to support our poorest pensioners. We have introduced a more generous minimum income guarantee for pensioners provided through income support and we announced in the Budget the introduction of a minimum tax guarantee to take 100,000 pensioners out of tax altogether.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: That policy has been well received, certainly in less well-heeled constituencies than that of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), such as mine. More than 10,000 of my constituents have had the benefit of the minimum pension guarantee and more than 20,000 have benefited from the winter fuel payment. That has made an

enormous difference, particularly in view of the Government's agreement that that minimum pension will be increased in line with wages, not just inflation.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping to correct the misleading impression that the hon. Gentleman has tried to give. The Government are clear that we intend to be fair to all our pensioners. That is precisely what our policies will do. My hon. Friend referred to winter fuel payments. We are giving every pensioner £100 to help with winter fuel heating costs. We have put in place a more generous home energy efficiency scheme and have ended VAT on domestic fuel which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends voted for during the last Parliament—not a popular policy with pensioners.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's general approach to older people. In addition to the hardships endured by older people because of their circumstances, many are not helped by the fragmentation of, or lack of access to, local services. The hon. Gentleman himself referred to some of those problems.
The Government are fully committed to providing better services that can better meet the needs of older people. We shall do so by listening to and consulting older people themselves. This summer, as part of the international year of older persons, Ministers have been setting up and participating in a string of listening events up and down the country. They are organised by local organisations and attended by older people, who have the chance to put their views directly to Ministers. I am attending two of these events. I and other Ministers will listen very hard to what is said. At local level, the Government are supporting the better government for older people programme. This involves local agencies working together on behalf of older people, consulting with them, and ensuring that services are appropriate and convenient.
I now want to focus on this Government's record on health and social care services for older people, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have achieved much in the short time that we have been in office. Much of what we have set in train will benefit older people throughout the country, including those who are fortunate enough to live in East Sussex.
The Government's polices centre on a number of key themes. Foremost is promoting the independence of individuals and listening to what they say they want from local services. We want to give older people more say in and control over the services that they receive, and we want to ensure that they have access to services when and where they need them. I shall briefly mention just some of our initiatives. The hon. Gentleman referred to the royal commission which we set up in 1997 to look into options for the funding of long-term care. That fulfilled a manifesto commitment. The report of the commission was published only in March 1999, and the Government are carefully considering their response to the proposals of both the majority and minority of commissioners, and the many comments that have been made on the report by a variety of organisations. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the report contained 24 main recommendations and a host of other minor recommendations, too. It is right, therefore, that we spend an appropriate time on developing our response.
The hon. Gentleman expressed his concern about the existing rules which, he felt, were harsh and unfair. I hope that he will not mind my reminding him that the rules he was describing were the rules that he voted for and sustained in Government over many years.
We also introduced free eye tests for people aged 60 and over from April this year. We have spent significant amounts of new resources developing new health action zones. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the situation of carers. He will remember that in February this year we published, for the first time in this country, a new national strategy for carers, backed up with a new special grant of £140 million over three years to help local authorities provide a better and wider range of services to support carers. During the course of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman again failed to mention that the Government whom he supported had plenty of opportunities to introduce a similar mechanism of support for carers. Sadly, his Government never quite managed to get round to doing that.
Earlier this summer, we published a new charter, "You and Your Services", which local authorities are certainly consulting on now. We hope to see those new local charters introduced from April 2000.
Through a range of initiatives, we are getting health and social services authorities to work more closely and effectively together. For example, we have published new national priorities guidance with clear targets. In "Partnerships in Action", we set out a new range of operational flexibilities which will allow the NHS and social services to work more effectively together. Those proposals are now enshrined in new legislation and we expect to implement them as soon as possible.
We are also developing this year, for implementation next year, the new national service framework for older people, which will be issued to health and local authorities in April 2000. This framework will focus on those parts of the health service that are particularly important to older people; and, again for the first time, we will set new standards to increase the quality of local and health authority services and equity of access to them.
In summary, we are improving health and social care services by getting agencies to work more closely together and by ensuring that people receive services when and where they need them. The Government will achieve a great deal for older people, and lessen the hardships that many experience as they try to access local services.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to some of the problems in his constituency and county, so I shall now address my remarks to his concerns. He said much about local authority finance. I should remind him that within the total amount for local government in the current financial year, the Government have provided a 6.3 per cent. increase for social services departments across the country. For the first time, we have guaranteed that national resources for social services will increase in real terms for each of the following two years, enabling social services departments to plan ahead, knowing that there will be increasing funding. In fact, social services will receive almost £3 billion more in total over the next three years.
This year, for example, East Sussex county council plans to spend £39 million of its £89 million social services budget on services for older people. East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority has £505 million at

its disposal—3.76 per cent. more than in 1998–99. Its budget for services for older people currently exceeds £130 million.
The hon. Gentleman referred to our manifesto promises. We have honoured our election manifesto pledge to make the distribution system for local authority funding fairer by introducing some changes to the standard spending assessment formula. It is clearly for local authorities, not the Government, to decide on the local allocation of funding to services in accordance with local circumstances and priorities. That is a particularly pertinent point in this debate, as East Sussex has latitude to use its resources as it sees fit, in line with local needs, priorities and policies. Two of the SSA changes that we made this year clearly did not benefit East Sussex. There is no point pretending otherwise, but I am absolutely certain that we were right to make those changes.
In addition to resources delivered through SSAs, the Government have made additional resources available to local authorities. In addition to the carers' special grant, new special partnership and prevention grants are helping local authorities to work with health authorities to develop preventive and rehabilitative services for older people and other adults. These three new grants, totalling £890 million over three years, will help social services to promote independence and develop community-based services. Older people living in East Sussex will certainly benefit from the new grants, which amounted this year in East Sussex to £3.2 million, in addition to the total social services SSA.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to his concerns about the commissioning of residential care in East Sussex. We certainly want local authorities to commission social care services that deliver best value. Best value is the key element in the Government's agenda to improve the quality of local authority services and the efficiency and economy with which they are delivered. Best value will help to ensure that local authorities commission fairly and openly on the basis of a full consideration of costs, quality and outcomes. A new performance management framework will support the delivery of best value services.
Intrinsic to our approach to the provision of services must be even-handedness. We are pragmatic, not dogmatic, over who should provide services. We have no ideological bias in favour of either independent sector or public sector providers. We want local authorities to have an even-handed approach to internal and external provision. Under best value we want decisions on services to be based on proper and transparent reviews of services and accountable decision-making, which reflects local objectives and is based on the aspirations and views of local people and their communities.
I understand that the relationships between the local authority and independent providers in East Sussex have caused some concern in recent years. As he reminded us, the hon. Gentleman brought those matters to the attention of the House in an Adjournment debate more than two years ago. I fully understand his concerns. However, I understand that the new director of social services is keen to improve relationships and I hope that that will lead to greater co-operation in the future. Relationships between local authorities and independent providers have certainly been improving elsewhere in the country.
One problem in East Sussex to which the hon. Gentleman referred seems to be the large number of residential and nursing homes in that area. Although extensive use is made of the independent sector—89 per cent. of local authority residential care placements are in independent homes—the large number of homes means that fee rates for residential and nursing homes are depressed.
When it comes to the mechanics of contracting, we believe that the details of contracting arrangements between local authorities and suppliers are primarily matters for local decision. The Government do not set the rates at which local authorities should contract. We do, however, acknowledge that local authorities' commissioning activities need to improve, and we intend to assist that process of improvement. Strategic planning needs to pursue agreed strategic objectives, which are transparent to users and providers. Market management and contract setting should involve a variety of contract types, with contract prices that reflect providers' costs and planned outcomes for users. Local authorities need to ensure that services meet people's specific needs, and that

groups with particular needs, such as ethnic minorities, are better served. We set out that agenda in more detail in our recent White Paper.
We are taking a number of steps to help local authorities and providers to develop those relationships, and to think through their social services agenda. For example, we have just completed a well-attended series of highly productive regional conferences, designed to improve the arrangements for commissioning and paying for those residential services. One of the conferences was held in Brighton, and was attended by officers from East Sussex social services department and representatives from some of the independent homes in the East Sussex area.
Finally, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I, like my predecessor, meet representatives from the independent sector quarterly to share information, views and concerns. The hon. Gentleman asked me to take a close interest in—

The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes to Nine o'clock.